LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA, 

RECEIVED    BY    EXCHANGE 

Class 


The   Repeal   of   the 
Missouri  Compromise 


The  Repeal  of  the 
Missouri  Compromise 

Its  Origin  and  Authorship 


By 
P.  Orman  Ray,  Ph.  D. 

Professor  of  History  and  Political  Science, 
The  Pennsylvania  State  College 


Submitted  to  the  University  Faculty  of  Cornell 
University  in  partial  fulfillment  of  the  require 
ments  for  the  Degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy 


OF   THE 

UNIVERSITY 

OF 


Cleveland,  Ohio 

The  Arthur  H.  Clark  Company 

1909 


5- v  ^ 


COPYRIGHT  I908  BY 

P.  ORMAN  RAY 

ALL  RIGHTS  RESERVED 


TO 

FLORENCE 

My  Secretary  of  State  for  Home  Affairs 
commissioned  for  life 


192420 


OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY 

CF 


CONTENTS 

PREFACE     .  .         .         .         .  u 

INTRODUCTION     .         .         .         .         .  15 

CHAPTER  I.  Missouri  Politics,  1844-1852- 
Benton's  Retirement  from  the  Senate-The 
Jackson  Resolutions-Benton's  "Appeal"  27 

CHAPTER  II.  Missouri  Politics,  1844-1852 
(continued) -James  S.  Green's  Reply  to 
Benton's  "Appeal. "-Benton's  Election  to 
the  House  in  1852  ....  51 

CHAPTER  III.  The  Pacific  Railroad-Ben- 
ton's  "Central  National  Highway"-Ne- 
braska  Territorial  Movement,  i852-Abel- 
ard  Guthrie-Douglas's  Lack  of  Interest  in 
Nebraska-Atchison's  Inconsistency  .  72 

CHAPTER  IV.  The  Missouri  Senatorial  Cam 
paign  of  i853-Controversy  over  the  Legal 
ity  of  "Immediate"  Settlement  in  Nebras- 
ka-Atchison  is  Forced  to  Champion  the 
Repeal.  .....  109 

CHAPTER  V.  The  Provisional  Government 
of  Nebraska-Rev.  Thomas  Johnson-The 
Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs  Visits  Ne 
braska-Charges  against  Him  .  .  142 

CHAPTER  VI.  Popular  Interest  in  Nebraska 
among  Missourians  and  lowans-Hadley 


8  CONTENTS 

D.  Johnson-Congressional  Action  Antici 
pate  d-S  en  ator  Douglas  in  Europe-His  Let 
ter  to  Walker  and  Lanphier-The  Doctrine 
of  Supersedure  ,  .  .  .  163 

CHAPTER  VII.  The  Congressional  Aspects 
of  the  Missouri  Contest-The  Nebraska  Bill 
in  the  33d  Congress-The  Evidence  of 
Washington  Correspondents-Pressure  upon 
Douglas  to  Champion  the  Repeal-The  In 
fluence  of  Senator  Atchison-Report  of  Jan 
uary  4,  i854~Dixon's  Amendment-The  Ad 
ministration  .....  195 

CHAPTER  VIII.  The  Congressional  Aspects 
of  the  Missouri  Contest  (continued) -How 
the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill  with  the  Repeal 
Affected  Colonel  Benton-Senator  Atchi 
son's  Letter  Reviewing  the  Campaign-Col 
onel  John  A.  Parker's  "Secret  History  of 
the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill"-Testimony  of 
Francis  P.  Blair,  Jr.-Senator  Atchison,  the 
Real  Author  of  the  Repeal.  .  ..  220 
APPENDIX 

A .  A  New  Explanation  of  Senator  Douglas's 
Motives.        .  .  .  .  .  237 

B.  William  C.  Price.          .  .          .          243 

C.  Senator  Atchison's  Letter,  June  5,  1854.     253 

D.  Colonel  Parker's  "Secret  History  of  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  Bill "    .  .          .          264 

E.  Atchison's  Claims  and  Douglas's  Denials.  276 

F.  Selected  Bibliography  .  .  .  289 


OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY    I 

CF 


PREFACE 

This  book  is  a  thesis  submitted  to  the  University 
Faculty  of  Cornell  University  in  partial  fulfillment 
of  the  requirements  for  the  degree  of  Doctor  of 
Philosophy.  It  embodies  the  results  of  an  investiga 
tion  begun  in  the  American  History  Seminary  at 
Cornell  University  in  1902-1903. 

The  manuscript  has  been  read  by  Dr.  Charles 
H.  Hull,  Professor  of  American  History,  Cornell 
University,  Dr.  Ralph  C.  H.  Catterall,  Professor  of 
European  History,  Cornell  University,  and  by  Dr. 
James  A.  Woodburn,  Professor  of  American  History 
and  Politics,  Indiana  State  University.  To  each  of 
these  gentlemen  I  am  indebted  for  valuable  sugges 
tions.  Especially  large  is  the  debt  I  owe  to  Doc 
tor  Hull,  not  only  for  his  unflagging  interest,  con 
stant  encouragement  and  active  assistance  in  obtain 
ing  material,  but  also  for  many  keen,  but  kindly, 
criticisms  and  much  invaluable  advice  in  the  ardu 
ous  labor  of  preparing  the  work  for  publication. 

Cordial  thanks  are  due  to  Hon.  Kirk  D. 
Pierce,  of  Hillsboro,  New  Hampshire,  for  unre 
stricted  access  to  the  existing  papers  of  his  uncle, 
President  Franklin  Pierce;  to  Mrs.  R.  E.  Wynne  of 
Tappahannock,  Virginia,  for  the  opportunity  to  ex- 


12  PREFACE 

amine  the  existing  papers  of  her  father,  Colonel 
John  A.  Parker;  to  Hon.  George  W.  Martin,  Secre 
tary  of  the  Kansas  State  Historical  Society,  William 
E.  Connelley,  Esq.,  of  Topeka,  Kansas,  William  M. 
Paxton,  Esq.,  of  Platte  City,  Missouri,  Professor 
Allen  Johnson  of  Bowdoin  College,  the  late  Colonel 
William  F.  Switzler  of  Columbia,  Missouri,  and 
the  late  Miss  Mary  Louise  Dalton,  Librarian  of  the 
Missouri  Historical  Society  of  St.  Louis,  for  placing 
in  my  hands  material  which  without  their  kind  as 
sistance  would  have  been  inaccessible. 

I  am  under  great  obligation  to  the  officials 
of  the  Boston  Public  Library,  the  Library  of  the 
Boston  Athenaeum,  Harvard  University  Library,  the 
Library  of  the  University  of  Missouri,  the  Wiscon 
sin  State  Historical  Library,  the  Pennsylvania  State 
Library,  the  Library  of  Cornell  University,  the  Li 
brary  of  the  University  of  Vermont,  the  Library  of 
the  Pennsylvania  State  College,  and  the  Library 
of  Congress.  Their  uniform  courtesy  and  valuable 
assistance  have  greatly  facilitated  the  collection  of 
material  for  this  book. 

A  word  of  grateful  appreciation  is  also  due 
those  individuals,  too  numerous  to  mention  by  name, 
who  have  taken  pains  to  reply  to  letters  asking 
for  information  upon  a  multitude  of  minor  points. 

Some  criticism  is  anticipated  on  account  of  the 
length  of  many  quotations  in  the  text.  Two  reasons 
may  be  offered  in  defense.  First,  it  has  seemed  de 
sirable  to  render  accessible  to  students,  lay  and  pro 
fessional,  much  of  the  new  evidence  upon  which  this 
work  is  based  and  which  otherwise  would  remain 


PREFACE  13 

nearly  or  quite  as  inaccessible  as  manuscript  material. 
In  the  second  place,  the  unusually  full  presentation 
of  evidence  reflects  a  desire  to  remove  reasonable 
ground  for  asserting  that  the  author  has  colored  or 
distorted  the  evidence  to  prove  his  case. 

Invaluable  assistance  in  the  reading  of  proof  has 
been  rendered  by  my  wife  and  by  Mr.  Edwin  Angell 
Cottrell,  Instructor  in  History  and  Political  Science 
in  the  Pennsylvania  State  College. 

P.  ORMAN  RAY 

State  College,  Pa., 

September  i,  1908. 


INTRODUCTION 

The  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  in  1854 
stands  conspicuous  as  a  turning  point  of  the  Amer 
ican  slavery  controversy.  It  put  an  end  forever  to 
the  long  series  of  accommodations  between  the  terri 
torial  claims  of  slavery  and  freedom.  In  the  presi 
dential  campaign  of  1852  both  parties  had  endorsed 
as  final  the  adjustment  made  two  years  before,  and 
had  condemned  all  attempts  to  reopen  the  slavery 
question.  Within  the  halls  of  Congress  and  with 
out,  acquiescence  in  the  finality  of  the  Compromise 
of  1850  had  become  the  test  of  political  orthodoxy 
for  Whigs  and  for  Democrats  alike. 

Such  was  the  artificial  equilibrium  when  the 
33d  Congress  convened  in  December,  1853.  Within 
a  month  the  slumbering  agitation  had  flamed  forth 
anew.  An  apparently  innocent  bill  to  organize  a 
territorial  government  west  of  the  Missouri  River 
provoked  a  gigantic  and  picturesque  parliamentary 
duel  in  the  Senate  Chamber  of  the  United  States, 
and  we  who  are  wise  after  the  fact  can  see  that  with 
the  termination  of  this  last  gladiatorial  combat  in 
the  arena  of  Congress  the  day  had  passed  for  peace 
ful  adjustments  and  for  compromises  based  upon 
mutual  good  faith.  The  estrangement  of  the  sec- 


1 6  INTRODUCTION 

tions  was  irreconcilable.  The  appeal  to  arms  was 
the  only  and  inevitable  means  of  ending  forever  the 
irrepressible  conflict. 

During  the  four  months'  debate  while  the  Kan 
sas-Nebraska  bill  was  pending  in  Congress,1  the  in 
terest  of  the  nation  was  focused  upon  the  proceed 
ings  of  that  body.  Polemical  writers,  taken  un 
awares  by  the  sudden  revival  of  the  slavery  dispute, 
immediately  set  at  work  explaining  legislative  occur 
rences  and  imputing  motives  on  the  basis  of  what 
appeared  in  the  Congressional  Globe.  Historians 
have  generally  followed  them,  and  are  practically 
unanimous  in  assigning  the  authorship  of  the  Repeal 
to  Hon.  Stephen  A.  Douglas;  but  they  offer  a  variety 
of  suggestions  as  to  his  purposes  and  motives  in  pre 
cipitating  a  new  agitation  of  the  slavery  question. 

According  to  Schouler,2  the  Repeal  was  the  re 
sult  of  a  plot  in  which  Douglas  appears  as  the  arch- 
conspirator,  seeking  purely  selfish  ends  through  ob 
sequious  pandering  to  an  insatiable  Slave  Power. 
Von  Hoist's  explanation  covers  several  pages,  but 
is  fairly  well  summarized  in  these  sentences: 

"The  drawing  of  the  slavery  question  into  the  bill  for  the 
organization  of  the  Territory  of  Nebraska,  which  was  so  complete 
a  surprise,  was  originally  intended  ....  to  be  only  a  tactical 
manoeuvre.  Douglas  wished  to  avert  the  injury  which  threat- 


1  The  bill  first  passed  the  Senate,  March  4,  1854.     It  passed  the  House 
in  an  amended  form,  May  22;   on  the  twenty-fifth,  the  Senate  concurred 
in  the  House  amendments.     President  Pierce  signed  the  act,  May  30.     Cong. 
Globe,   xxviii,   Pt.    i,    532;    Pt.    ii,    1254,    1321.     The   Act   may   be    found, 
printed  in  full,  in  U.  S.  Statutes  at  Large,  x,  277  ff. ;  Cong.  Globe,  xxviii, 
Pt.  iii,  2225  ff. ;  Poore's  Charters  and  Constitutions,  i,  569  ff. 

2  Schouler's  Hist,  of  the  U.  S.,  v,  280,  290. 


INTRODUCTION  17 

ened  his  party  because  of  the  attitude  assumed  by  the  President 
toward  the  Softs  of  New  York."  3 

Woodrow  Wilson  speaks  of  Douglas's  "strong, 
coarse-grained,  unsensitive  nature,  his  western  au 
dacity,  his  love  of  leading,  and  leading  boldly,  in  the 
direction  whither,  as  it  seemed  to  him,  there  lay  party 
strength."4  Mr.  Rhodes,  accepting  the  motive  as 
signed  in  the  Appeal  of  the  Independent  Democrats 
in  Congress,5  namely,  that  the  dearest  interests  of  the 
people  were  made  "the  mere  hazards  of  a  presiden 
tial  game,"  insists  that  the  action  of  the  Illinois  Sen 
ator  was  "a  bid  for  Southern  support  in  the  next 
Democratic  Convention." 6 

Professor  Burgess  assigns  a  more  creditable  mo 
tive  and  a  higher  purpose  to  Mr.  Douglas,  and  his 

3  Von  Hoist's  Constitutional  and  Political  Hist,  of  the  U.  S.,  iv,  350. 
This  explanation  is  based  upon  what  purports  to  have  been  a  statement  once 
made  by  Douglas  himself: 

"He  once  subsequently  in  the  fall  of  1853  confessed  'that  his  party  in 
the  election  of  Pierce  had  consumed  all  its  powder,  and  that  therefore 
without  a  deep-reaching  agitation,  it  would  have  no  more  ammunition  for 
its  artillery.'"  (Ibid.,  315.) 

Von  Hoist  cites  Kapp's  Geschichte  der  Sklaverei,  295.  But  Kapp 
himself  gives  no  authority  and  says  merely  that  such  was  Douglas's  opinion. 
The  translator  of  Von  Hoist  puts  Kapp's  statement  in  quotation  marks,  and 
we  find  Rhodes  led  to  the  false  conclusion  that  the  words  were  actually 
uttered  by  Douglas;  Rhodes's  Hist,  of  the  U.  S.,  i,  430. 

4 Division  and  Reunion,  184;  History  of  the  American  People,  iv, 
166  ff. 

5  Published  January  24,  1854;  Cong.  Globe,  xxviii,  Pt.  i,  281. 

6  Rhodes's  Hist,  of  the  U.  S.,  i,  429-430.     Prof.  T.  C.  Smith,  obviously 
following  Rhodes,   says: 

"Douglas  appears  to  have  introduced  this  singular  and  startling  project 
entirely  on  his  own  motion,  and  its  purpose  seems  to  have  been  nothing 
more  or  less  than  an  eifort  on  the  part  of  a  presidential  candidate  to  secure 
favor  in  a  quarter  where  he  lacked  popularity."  —  Parties  and  Slavery, 
1850-1859,  96. 


1 8  INTRODUCTION 

explanation  has  of  late  been  gaining  wide  accept 
ance.7 

"Mr.  Douglas  was  a  Western  Democrat;  that  is,  he  was  a 
radical  Democrat.  He  had,  therefore,  an  exaggerated  notion  of 
the  virtues  of  the  people,  and  of  the  importance  of  local  autonomy. 
He  resented  the  idea  that  the  sturdy  adventurers  who  accom 
plished  the  first  settlement  of  a  Western  Territory  were  not  as 
fully  capable  of  local  self-government,  from  the  very  outset,  as 
the  'effeminate'  inhabitants  of  an  Eastern  Commonwealth.  He 
repudiated  the  notion  that  they  needed  any  pupilage  from  the 
general  government  in  the  management  of  public  affairs.  He 
was  not  alone  in  such  views.  It  is  safe  to  say  that  the  mass  of 

the  people  in  his  section  held  the  same  views  at  that  time 

Is  it  not,  then,  fair  to  say  that  Mr.  Douglas,  in  all  probability, 
really  believed  that  the  reference  of  the  questions  in  regard  to 
slavery  to  the  residents  of  each  Territory,  as  well  as  to  those  of 
each  'State',  was  the  true  principle  of  the  political  science  of  the 
Republic,  and  the  true  policy  of  its  legislation?  If  his  convictions 
and  his  ambition  went  hand  in  hand,  and  if  his  convictions  were 
not  the  product  of  his  ambition,  should  he  be  so  harshly  criticised 
for.  declaring  them?  It  is  true  that  his  announcement  of  them 
filled  the  land  with  clamor  and  angry  dispute,  and  that  their  adop 
tion  by  Congress  led  to  violence,  bloodshed,  and  war;  but  can  we 
conclude  that  he  had  any  conception  whatsoever  that  this  could  be 
the  result  of  them?  Is  it  not  far  more  probable  that  he  thought 
the  quiet  of  the  country  would  be  confirmed  and  forever  estab 
lished  by  their  general  acceptance?  There  is  certainly  ground  for 
this  view  of  his  motives.  It  is  certainly  very  improbable  that  there 
was  ever  any  balancing,  in  his  mind,  of  risks  to  his  country's 
peace  and  safety  against  his  ambition  for  the  presidency.  It  is 
much  more  probable  that  he  believed  his  principles  without  his 
presidency,  would  contribute,  in  a  high  degree,  to  the  peace  and 
welfare  of  his  country,  but  that,  taken  together  with  his  presi- 


7  The  Middle  Period,  385.  See  also  an  article  on  "Douglas  and 
Popular  Sovereignty"  by  Professor  Allen  Johnson,  in  Iowa  Journal  of  His 
tory  and  Politics,  for  January  and  July,  1905. 


INTRODUCTION  19 

dency,  they  would  shed  untold  blessings  upon  the  land.     This  is 
no  unusual  psychology.     It  is  decidedly  common." 

The  standard  explanations  just  quoted  are  for 
several  reasons  thoroughly  unsatisfactory.8  They 
are  merely  conjectural.  And  they  derive  no  great 
support  from  Mr.  Douglas's  own  assertion  that  he 
had  been  pressing  the  Nebraska  bill  upon  the  at 
tention  of  Congress  for  "eight  long  years,"  9  for  this 
assertion  is  untrue.  Although  Mr.  Douglas  had 
been  chairman  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Terri 
tories  throughout  this  period,  the  records  of  Con 
gress  fail  to  show  the  introduction  by  him  of  any 
bill  looking  toward  the  territorial  organization  of 
Nebraska  after  December,  1848,  until  he  reported 
the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  in  January,  1854:  for  more 
than  four  years  he  was  wholly  silent  upon  the  sub 
ject. 

These  conjectural  explanations  may  serve  to 
show  why  Senator  Douglas,  if  called  upon  in  Jan 
uary,  1854,  to  choose  between  the  settlement  of  the 
question  of  slavery  in  Nebraska  upon  the  principle 
of  popular  sovereignty,  entailing  the  repeal  of  the 
Missouri  Compromise,  and  the  further  delay  in  the 
establishment  of  a  territorial  government,  might 

8  Messrs.  J.  Amos  Barrett  and  A.  E.  Sheldon,  of  the  Nebraska  Histor 
ical  Society,  are  the  authors  of  perhaps  the  most  recent  and  novel  explana 
tion  of  Mr.  Douglas's  motives.     This  appeared  in  the  Omaha  Bee,  June 
5,   1904.     The  argument  is  based  upon  very  weak  premises,   and  will   be 
considered  at  some  length  in  the  Appendix  to  this  volume.     The  best  and 
most  recent  biography  of  Mr.  Douglas,  by  Professor  Allen  Johnson,  gives 
no  satisfactory  explanation. 

9  Cong.  Globe,  xxvi,  1117.     See  also  Douglas's  speech  at  Chicago,  Nov. 
9,    1854,    and    Cutts's    Constitutional   and   Party    Questions,    87.     Professor 
Johnson  accepts  this  statement  at  its  face  value. 


20  INTRODUCTION 

favor  the  Repeal.  But  they  do  not  indicate  that  any 
such  alternative  was  presented  to  Mr.  Douglas.  In 
the  circumstances  under  which  the  Nebraska  bill, 
after  passing  the  House,  failed  in  the  Senate  in  the 
last  crowded  days  of  the  session,  in  March,  1853, 
there  was  nothing  to  require  the  insertion  of  the  re 
pealing  clause  in  order  to  make  the  measure  accept 
able  to  the  next  Congress.  Mr.  Douglas  himself  de 
clared  that  he  knew  there  was  a  majority  in  its 
favor.10 

Let  it  be  remembered  also  that  no  motive  of 
political  self-preservation  could  have  led  Mr.  Doug 
las  to  originate  the  Repeal  in  1854.  His  seat  in  the 
Senate  was  perfectly  secure,  threatened  by  no  rival, 
actual  or  prospective.  He  had  been  reflected  in 
1852  without  opposition,  and  of  his  new  term  only 
nine  months  had  elapsed  before  the  opening  of  the 
Congress  which  enacted  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill. 

Unless  some  such  alternative  were  presented  to 
him,  it  is  highly  improbable  that  Mr.  Douglas  would 
have  raised  the  question  himself;  for,  furthermore, 
he  had  eulogized  the  adjustment  made  in  1820,  as 
a  compromise  "canonized  in  the  hearts  of  the  Amer 
ican  people,  as  a  sacred  thing  which  no  ruthless  hand 
would  ever  be  reckless  enough  to  disturb."  On  at 
least  three  different  occasions  within  a  decade  he  had 
brought  forward  and  advocated  the  extension  of  the 

J0  March  3,  1853;  Cong.  Globe,  xxvi,  1117. 

11  October  23,  1849,  in  a  speech  at  Springfield,  111.  Quoted  in  Von 
Hoist's  Const,  and  Pol.  Hist.  U.  S.y  iv,  334  n.  i.;  by  Jehu  Baker  in  a  speech 
at  Belleville,  111.,  October  18,  1854,  reported  in  the  Weekly  Democratic 
Press  (Chicago),  November  n,  1854;  and  by  Cullom,  Cong.  Globe,  xxix, 
539- 


INTRODUCTION  21 

Missouri  Compromise  line  as  a  means  of  settling  the 
question  of  slavery  in  the  new  Territories.12  He  had 
even  announced  in  1851  his  resolute  determination 
"never  to  make  another  speech  on  the  slavery  ques 
tion"  and  had  added  the  "hope  that  the  necessity  for 
it  will  never  exist."  13 

Under  these  circumstances,  Mr.  Douglas's  cham 
pionship  of  the  Repeal  inevitably  gave  rise  to  charges 
of  infidelity  to  his  party's  platform  recognizing  the 
finality  of  the  settlement  of  1850,  and  of  gross  per 
sonal  inconsistency.  Such  charges  Mr.  Douglas 
must  have  foreseen;  and  a  politician  of  his  prom 
inence  and  shrewdness,  entertaining  presidential  as 
pirations,  would  not  gratuitously  have  provoked 
them.  The  charge  of  inconsistency,  to  be  sure,  he 
subsequently  sought  to  parry  by  asserting  that  the 
Compromise  of  1850  had  established  a  precedent,  a 
new  principle,  for  the  settlement  of  the  question  of 
slavery  in  new  Territories;  and  that  it  had  "super 
seded"  or  was  "inconsistent  with"  the  Compromise  of 
1820.  But  this  explanation  seems  to  have  been  an 
afterthought. 

In  short,  Mr.  Douglas  was  thoroughly  com 
mitted  to  the  Missouri  Compromise,  he  was  not  par 
ticularly  interested  in  Nebraska,  and  he  was  subject 
in  1853  to  no  political  necessity  originating  in  his  own 
position  which  could  have  forced  him  to  adopt  a 


12  In   1845,   in  connection  with  the  resolutions  for  the  annexation  of 
Texas;  in  1846,  as  a  substitute  for  the  Wilmot  Proviso;  in  1848,  when  the 
Oregon  bill  was  under  consideration;  Cong.  Globe,  xviii,  1062.     See  Doug 
las's  speech,  December  23,  1851,  in  Cong.  Globe,  xxv,  67;  and  his  speech  at 
Chicago,  November  9,  1854. 

13  December  23,  1851;  Cong.  Globe,  xxv,  67. 


22  INTRODUCTION 

course  so  manifestly  dangerous  and  which  in  its  out 
come  wrecked  his  career. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  was  a  member  of  the 
Senate  who  belonged  to  the  radical  wing  of  the 
Democratic  party  and  had  long  regarded  the  Mis 
souri  Compromise  restriction  as  unconstitutional. 
His  senatorial  existence  was  in  jeopardy  and  for  his 
political  salvation  the  repeal  of  the  Compromise  in 
1854  seemed  absolutely  essential.  On  more  than  one 
occasion,  he  afterwards  lay  claim  to  the  honor,  as  he 
regarded  it,  of  originating  the  Repeal. 

Senator  David  R.  Atchison  of  Missouri  stands 
a  rival  claimant  for  consideration  as  the  real  author 
of  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise. 

In  a  speech  at  Atchison,  in  Kansas  Territory,  a 
few  months  after  the  passage  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill,14  Senator  Atchison  asserted  that  at  the  opening 
of  the  33d  Congress,  he  had  desired  the  chairmanship 
of  the  Committee  on  Territories  in  order  to  introduce 
a  bill  for  a  territorial  government  in  Nebraska  which 
should  repeal  the  Missouri  Compromise.  With  this 
object  in  view  "he  had  a  private  interview  with  Mr. 
Douglas  and  informed  him  of  what  he  desired." 
"Judge  Douglas  requested  twenty-four  hours  to  con 
sider  the  matter,"  offering  to  resign  the  chairman 
ship  "if  at  the  expiration  of  that  time  he  could  not 
introduce  such  a  bill"  as  Mr.  Atchison  proposed. 
"At  the  expiration  of  the  given  time  Senator  Douglas 
signified  his  intention  to  report  such  a  bill  as  had 
been  spoken  of."  Senator  Atchison  is  reported  to 

!4  September  20,   1854;   reported  in  New  York   Tribune,  October  10, 
1854,  and  June  4,  1855. 


INTRODUCTION  23 

have  used  emphatic  language  when  asserting  his 
claim  on  this  occasion:  "Gentlemen,  you  make  a 
d — d  fuss  about  Douglas,  but  Douglas  don't  deserve 
the  credit  of  this  Nebraska  bill.  I  told  Douglas  to 
introduce  it.  I  originated  it.  I  got  Pierce  com 
mitted  to  it,  and  all  the  glory  belongs  to  me."  His 
torians  have  disparaged  this  claim  because  it  was 
made  when  Mr.  Atchison  was  "under  the  influence 
of  the  invisible  spirit  of  wine." 

There  is  no  evidence,  however,  that  Mr.  At 
chison  was  intoxicated  when  he  recurred  to  the 
same  subject  at  Platte  City,  Missouri,  in  February, 
i8$6.is  Referring  to  speeches  made  by  him  "all  over 
the  State"  in  1853  in  which  he  had  pledged  himself 
to  vote  for  a  bill  establishing  a  territorial  govern 
ment  in  Nebraska  on  the  one  condition  that  the  Mis 
souri  Compromise  was  repealed,  telling  the  people 
that  "unless  that  restriction  was  repealed"  he  "would 
see  them  damned"  before  he  would  support  such  a 
bill,  Mr.  Atchison  said,  "Well,  it  was  done.  I  do 
not  say  that  I  did  it,  but  7  'was  a  prominent  agent" 

Some  time  after  the  publication  of  Mr.  Atchi- 
son's  claims  Senator  Douglas  characterized  the  re 
ports  of  Atchison's  remarks  as  a  "stale  abolition 
libel," 16  and  the  issue  of  veracity  thus  raised  between 
Mr.  Douglas  and  Mr.  Atchison  historians  have  sum 
marily  adjudged  in  favor  of  Mr.  Douglas  on  the 
ground  that  the  claims  of  Mr.  Atchison  were  made 
during  a  state  of  intoxication.  This  is  entirely  un- 

15  New  York  Times,  February  25,  1856. 

16  April  14,  1856;  Cong.  Globe,  ist  Sess.,  34th  Cong.,  App.  390  if.     See 
Appendix  E. 


24  INTRODUCTION 

satisfactory  because  while  the  fact  of  intoxication 
may  impair  the  force  of  Atchison's  claims,  it  does  not 
warrant  their  total  rejection. 

The  issue  thus  raised  and  the  inadequacy  of  the 
standard  explanations  justify  an  attempt  to  explain 
the  origin  of  the  Repeal  by  looking  away  from  the 
pages  of  the  Congressional  Globe,  and  studying  the 
political  conditions  existing  in  the  State  of  Mis 
souri.17  To  advance  a  new  explanation,  resulting 
from  such  a  study,  of  the  circumstances  under  which 
the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  con 
ceived  ;  and  to  explain  how  the  Repeal  happened  to 
occur  early  in  1854  when  the  country  had  been  lulled 
into  apparent  quietude  after  the  tumultuous  agitation 
threatening  the  integrity  of  the  Union,  constitute 
the  main  purpose  of  this  book.  Closely  connected 
with  this,  there  is  a  problem  of  secondary  impor 
tance,  namely,  the  question  who  originated  the  sug 
gestion  of  the  Repeal. 


W  The  possibility  of  a  western  or  Missouri  origin  of  the  Repeal  has 
not  escaped  such  leading  historians  as  Rhodes  and  Von  Hoist  but  its  signif 
icance  is  not  appreciated;  Rhodes's  Hist,  of  the  U.  S.,  i,  431,  440;  Von 
Hoist's  Const,  and  Pol.  Hist.  U.  S.y  iv,  285  ff. 


CHAPTER  I 

Missouri  Politics,  i844-i852-Bentons  Retirement  from  the  Sen 
ate—The  Jackson  Resolutions— Bentons  "Appeal" 

For  a  decade  prior  to  the  repeal  of  the  Mis 
souri  Compromise,  the  Democratic  party  in  Missouri 
had  been  rent  with  internal  dissensions.  These  were 
but  one  manifestation  of  a  cleavage  running  through 
the  Democratic  party  in  the  Southern  States  during 
these  years,  separating  into  one  faction  the  radical, 
secessionist  followers  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  and  into  the 
other,  the  conservative  elements  opposed  to  disunion 
tendencies.18  In  no  State,  however,  was  the  war  be 
tween  these  factions  characterized  by  a  greater  bit 
terness  of  feeling  and  violence  of  utterance  than  in 
the  State  of  Missouri.  There  the  disciples  of  Mr. 
Calhoun  found  leaders  in  David  R.  Atchison  and 
James  S.  Green.  In  the  opposing  faction  no  one 
equalled  in  prominence  and  influence  Calhoun's  bit 
ter  political  and  personal  enemy,  Colonel  Thomas 

!8The  fight  of  1849-51  "in  which  Benton  was  overthrown  was  merely 
the  Missouri  extension  of  the  conflict  between  the  Calhoun  and  the  Jackson 
elements  of  the  Democracy  which  raged  through  most  of  the  slave  States, 
but  which  was  particularly  fierce  in  the  border  tier,  in  which  the  Jack- 
sonians  had  been  largely  in  the  preponderance  in  the  beginning."  —  Good- 
speed,  Weston  Arthur,  Editor-in-Chief,  Provinces  and  States;  A  History 
of  the  Province  of  Louisiana  under  France  and  Spain,  and  of  the  Territories 
and  States  formed  therefrom,  iv,  108.  Hereafter  cited  as  Goodspeed. 


28  THE  REPEAL  OF 

H.  Benton.  Chiefly  to  the  peculiar  characteristics 
of  Colonel  Benton  is  to  be  attributed  the  extraordi 
nary  fierceness  of  the  conflict  in  Missouri. 

Both  Mr.  Atchison  and  Colonel  Benton  were 
members  of  the  33d  Congress:  Atchison,  in  the 
Senate;  Benton,  in  the  House.  Atchison  had  never 
played  a  prominent  part  in  national  politics.  Ben- 
ton  had  been  conspicuously  before  the  public  for  a 
generation.  He  was  a  statesman  of  the  old  school; 
personally  ostentatious  and  overbearing,  respected 
and  honored,  but  never  loved.  Atchison,  a  younger 
man,  was  a  politician  of  the  new  school;  swaggering 
and  coarse,  but  magnetic,  skilful  in  intrigue,  and  a 
masterful  manipulator  of  men.  The  name  of  one  is 
writ  large  in  the  annals  of  the  country:  the  name  of 
the  other  has  come  down  to  posterity  as  that  of  a 
"Border  Ruffian." 

In  1853-54  the  factional  war  in  Missouri  was  at 
its  height.  Colonel  Benton,  after  thirty  years  in  the 
Senate,  had  been  defeated  for  reelection  in  1850  by 
a  combination  of  radical  Democrats  and  Whigs. 
Almost  immediately  he  had  been  elected  to  the 
House  of  Representatives  where  he  sat  during  the 
debate  on  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill.  He  ardently 
desired  to  return  to  the  Senate  in  March,  1855,  as  the 
successor  of  Mr.  Atchison.  Mr.  Atchison  desired  to 
be  his  own  successor.  The  final  stage  of  the  contest 
for  the  senatorial  succession  began  as  early  as  the 
spring  of  1853.  When  the  Missouri  Compromise 
was  repealed  the  next  year,  Colonel  Benton  was 
struggling  desperately  to  restore  his  waning  political 
power  in  the  State,  and  Senator  Atchison  was  no  less 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  29 

strenuously  endeavoring  to  bring  about  his  own  re 
election  to  the  Senate.  The  political  ambition  and 
success  of  one  inevitably  involved  the  political  de 
struction  of  the  other.  Quarter  was  neither  asked 
nor  given.  From  the  State  of  Missouri,  the  scene 
of  its  birth,  this  titanic  struggle  was  transferred  to 
Washington  and  there,  in  the  arena  of  national  pol 
itics,  it  led  to  the  proposal  to  repeal  the  Missouri 
Compromise. 

For  a  clear  understanding  of  the  way  in  which  a 
senatorial  contest  in  a  single  State  could  produce 
such  stupendous  national  consequences  as  were 
wrought  by  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise, 
it  becomes  necessary  to  examine  in  some  detail  the 
political  conditions  existing  in  Missouri  in  the  decade 
preceding  the  Repeal.  By  untangling  the  confused 
and  complex  issues  then  before  the  people  of  that 
State  we  shall  set  the  Repeal  in  a  new  and  true  light. 
It  will  signally  illustrate  the  way  in  which  State 
political  issues  have  been  transformed,  more  fre 
quently  than  is  generally  realized,  into  national  is 
sues.  It  will  show  that  a  correct  understanding  of 
national  issues  may  require  a  thorough  study  of  local 
conditions. 

The  story  of  Senator  Benton's  retirement  from 
the  Senate  begins  with  his  attitude  toward  Mr.  Cal- 
houn  and  the  policies  for  which  Mr.  Calhoun  stood,19 
especially  with  his  opposition  to  the  plans  of  the  ag 
gressive  and  radical  pro-slavery  element  in  the  Mis- 


19  Goodspeed,  iv,  84;  Niles's  Register,  Ixvi,  444. 


30  THE  REPEAL  OF 

souri  Democracy  which  derived  its  principles  from 
the  great  Nullifies20 

Since  the  time  when  Colonel  Benton  had  de 
fended  and  supported  President  Jackson  in  his  policy 
toward  Nullification  in  South  Carolina,  Mr.  Cal- 
houn  and  Senator  Benton  had  been  personal  and 
political  enemies.21  With  his  characteristically  fear 
less  and  energetic  opposition,  the  latter  had  been  con 
spicuously  instrumental  in  defeating  Mr.  Calhoun's 
scheme  for  the  "immediate"  annexation  of  Texas  by 
the  treaty  signed  the  twelfth  of  April,  1844,  and  re 
jected  by  the  Senate  on  the  twelfth  of  June  in  the 
same  year.22 


20  In  assigning  the  causes  which  led  to  Benton's  retirement  one  must 
not  overlook  those  repellent  personal  characteristics  which  no  doubt  played 
a  considerable  part  in  his  political  overthrow.     These,  taken  with  his  long 
residence  in  Washington  which  removed  him  from  close  and  sympathetic 
contact  with  the  younger  generation  of  Missourians  and  from  a  first-hand 
knowledge  of  actual  conditions  in  Missouri,  probably  had  a  great  deal  to 
do  in  undermining  his  power  and  in  strengthening  the  arm  of  his  enemies. 
A  brief  but  excellent  statement  of  these  peculiarities  of  Benton  is  to  be 
found  in  Rogers's  Life  of  Thomas  Hart  Benton,  228,  283,  297,  312-313,  315, 
318;  hereafter  cited  as  Rogers's  Benton. 

21  "I  am  mortified  to  dwell  upon  Mr.  Calhoun He  has  been 

instigating    attacks   upon   me    for   twenty   years  —  ever    since   I    stood    by 
Jackson  and  the  Union  in  the  first  war  of  nullification.     His  Duff  Green 
Telegraph  commenced  upon  me  at  the  same  time  that  it  did  upon  Jackson, 
and   for   the   same   cause  —  because   we   stood   by   the    Union."  —  Benton's 
speech,  Jefferson  City,  Mo.,  May  26,  1849.     Niles's  Register,  Ixxv,  390  ff. 

"He  [Benton]  says  I  instigated  attacks  on  him  for  twenty  years.  I 
instigate  attacks  on  him!  He  must  have  a  very  exalted  opinion  of  him 
self.  I  never  thought  of  such  a  thing.  We  move  in  different  spheres. 
My  course  is,  and  has  been,  to  have  nothing  to  do  with  him.  I  never 
wanted  his  support,  nor  dreaded  his  opposition."  —  Calhoun's  Reply  men 
tioned  in  note  45. 

22  Benton's  Thirty  Years'  View,  ii,  581  ff.     See  also  Benton's  Jefferson 
City  speech,  May  26,  1849;  Stephens's  The  War  between  the  States,  ii,  242; 
Calhoun's  "Correspondence"   in  American  Historical  Association's  Report, 
1899,  ii,  633,  635,  636,  658. 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  31 

In  retaliation,  an  active  organization  of  the 
friends  of  Mr.  Calhoun  and  the  "immediate"  annex 
ation  of  Texas  appeared  in  the  State  of  Missouri 
when  the  time  came  round  late  in  1844  for  Mr.  Ben- 
ton's  fifth  election.  This  movement  had  the  support, 
so  Colonel  Benton  claimed,  of  "every  Calhoun  man 
and  every  Calhoun  newspaper  in  the  State  and  in  the 
United  States."  23  Instructions  alleged  to  have  been 
inspired  by  Mr.  Calhoun  were  sent  to  hundreds  of 
newspapers  over  the  country,  intended  for  their 
guidance  in  the  presidential  and  state  elections  and 
especially  to  defeat  Mr.  Benton's  own  election. 
These  instructions  advised  and  urged  attacks  upon 
Benton  by  showing  that  he  had  allied  himself  with 
the  Whigs  on  the  Texas  question.  "Quote,"  said  the 
instructions,  "Jackson's  letter  on  Texas,24  where  he  de 
nounces  all  those  as  traitors  to  the  country  who  op 
pose  the  treaty.  Apply  it  to  Benton.  Proclaim  that 
Benton,  by  attacking  Mr.  Tyler  and  his  friends,  and 
driving  them  from  the  party,  is  aiding  the  election 
of  Mr.  Clay;  and  charge  him  with  doing  this  to 
defeat  Mr.  Polk,  and  insure  himself  the  succession 
in  1848;  and  claim  that  full  justice  be  done  the  acts 
and  motives  of  John  Tyler  by  the  leaders.  Harp 


23  "In  the  year  1844,  as  it  will  be  remembered,  when  my  fifth  election 
was  coming  round,  there  was   an  organization   against  me   in  the   State, 
supported  by  every   Calhoun  man,   and  every  Calhoun  newspaper  in  the 
State,  and  in  the  United  States.     There  was  a  coincidence  in  their  opera 
tions  which  showed  that  they  worked  by  a  pattern.     I  knew  at  the  time 
where  it  all  came  from ;  and  the  source  has  since  been  authentically  revealed 
to  me "     Benton's  Jefferson  City  speech. 

24  Letter  of  Andrew  Jackson  to  William  B.  Lewis,  January  28,  1844, 
in  N.  Y.  Public  Library  Bulletin,  iv,  308. 


32  THE  REPEAL  OF 

upon  these  strings." 2S  So  far  as  Missouri  was  con 
cerned  it  appears  that  these  instructions  were  obeyed 
to  the  letter.26 

This  effort  of  Mr.  Calhoun  and  his  friends  to 
discredit  Colonel  Benton  by  emphasizing  his  oppo 
sition  to  the  annexation  of  Texas  was  probably  the 
strongest  move  which  could  have  been  made  at  that 
time  to  undermine  Benton's  political  supremacy  in 
Missouri.  An  overwhelming  majority  of  the  people 
of  that  State  ardently  favored  the  acquisition  of 
Texas.27  The  Legislature  which  met  in  December, 
1844,  had  adopted  a  memorial  to  Congress  urging 
the  annexation  of  Texas  at  the  "earliest  practicable 
moment."  28 


25  Quoted  in  Benton's  Jefferson  City  speech. 

26  "How  well  the  instructions  were  obeyed  was  seen  in  this  State,  and 
in  other  States,  and  in  all  the  presses  and  politicians  which  followed  the 
lead    of    'our   leading   friend   at   the    South.'    Benton  —  Clay  —  Whigs  — 
Texas.     Harp  upon  these  strings,  and  harp  they  did  until  the  strings  were 
worn  out ;   and  then  the  harps  were  hung  upon  the  willows."  —  Benton's 
Jefferson  City  speech. 

27  "The  State  of  Missouri  is  more  deeply  interested  in  the  annexation 
of  Texas  than  any  other  State;"  Benton's  remarks  in  the  Senate,  in  pre 
senting  this  memorial,  January  20,  1845;   Cong.  Globe,  xiv,  154-155.     See 
also  Benton's  View,  ii,  615;  Carr's  Missouri,  193-199;  Calhoun's  "Corres 
pondence,"  633,  635,  636,  658,  954,  969,  1197,  1199.    The  people  of  Missouri 
were  "for  speedy  annexation  regardless  of  the  smiles  or  frown  of  foreign 
nations;"  letter  of  Andrew  Jackson  to  B.  F.  Butler,  May  14,  1844,  printed  in 
Am.  Hist.  Rev.,  xi,  833.     See  also  Niles's  Register,  Ixvii,  42   (September 
21,  1844),  quoting  the  Richmond  Whig;  Goodspeed,  iv,  ch.  9. 

Senator  Atchison,  then  serving  his  first  term  in  the  Senate,  warmly 
supported  Mr.  Calhoun's  annexation  scheme;  Niles's  Register,  Ixxii,  278, 
quoting  the  Missouri  Republican. 

28  Before  the  adoption  of  this  memorial,  the  friends  of  Mr.  Calhoun 
tried  to  amend  it  so  as  to  urge  "immediate"  annexation,  but  in  this  they 
failed.     As  a  rejoinder  to  this  attempt,  the  following  resolutions,  inspired 
by  Colonel  Benton  and  very  well  indicating  his  feeling  toward  Mr.  Calhoun 


THE   MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  33 

Despite  these  assaults  upon  his  position  respect 
ing  Texas,  Colonel  Benton  was  triumphantly  re- 
elected  to  the  Senate  in  January,  1845;  and  at  the 
beginning  of  his  fifth  term  he  was  without  any  ques 
tion  the  most  powerful  man  in  Missouri  politics. 
Prior  to  1844  it  had  been  supposed  to  be  "political 
death  for  any  man  even  to  whisper  a  breath  against 
'Old  Bullion,'  the  idol  of  Missouri."  29  The  attacks 
upon  him  which  appear  in  the  campaign  of  that  year 
had  been  inspired  by  parties  outside  the  State.  One 
effect  seems  to  have  been  the  encouragement  of  radi 
cal  pro-slavery  men  and  the  enemies  of  Benton  with 
in  the  State  to  unite  and  form  a  more  perfect  organi- 

at  this  time,  were  offered  as  a  substitute  for  the  memorial  finally  adopted: 

"i.  [Resolved]  That  in  the  opinion  of  this  General  Assembly,  the 
treaty  of  the  twelfth  day  of  April,  1844,  for  the  annexation  of  Texas  to 
the  United  States  was  an  intrigue  for  the  Presidency,  and  a  contrivance 
to  get  the  southern  States  out  of  the  Union,  instead  of  getting  Texas 
states  into  it,  and  was  among  the  most  unscrupulous  intrigues  which  any 
country  ever  saw  —  and  nullified  the  choice  of  the  people,  and  the  rights 
of  the  people,  and  the  principles  of  our  Government. 

"2.  [Resolved]  That  the  ratification  of  the  treaty  for  the  annexation 
of  Texas  to  the  United  States  would  have  been  an  adoption  of  the  Texas 
war  with  Mexico  by  the  United  States,  and  would  devolve  its  conduct 
and  conclusion  on  the  United  States. 

"3.  [Resolved]  That  the  treaty-making  power  does  not  extend  to 
the  power  of  making  war,  and  the  President  and  Senate  have  no  right 
to  make  war  either  by  declaration  or  adoption. 

"4.  [Resolved]  That  the  war  with  Mexico,  in  which  the  United 
States  were  in  danger  of  being  involved  by  the  President  of  the  United 
States  and  the  Secretary  of  State,  would  have  been  unconstitutional,  per 
fidious,  clandestine,  and  piratical." 

These  resolutions  were  voted  down;  indeed  it  seems  probable  that  the 
author  had  no  expectation  of  their  passage.  They  may  be  found  in  Niles's 
Register,  Ixvii,  278  (January  4,  1845). 

29  From  a  statement  by  Judge  William  C.  Price,  an  influential  oppo 
nent  of  Benton,  reported  to  me  by  William  E.  Connelley,  Esq.,  of  Topeka, 
Kansas.  See  also  Meigs's  Life  of  Thomas  Hart  Benton,  405  ff. ;  hereafter 
cited  as  Meigs's  Benton. 


34  THE  REPEAL  OF 

zation  —  an  organization  having  for  one  of  its  main 
purposes  the  overthrow  of  Senator  Benton  as  the 
controlling  factor  in  Missouri  politics.30  In  addi 
tion  to  the  ardent  supporters  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  Ben- 
ton's  enemies  comprised  all  those  who  for  one  reason 
or  another  had  become  restive  and  discontented  under 
the  political  absolutism  which  he  had  exercised  for 
more  than  twenty  years.31 

Perhaps  no  individual  at  the  beginning  of  the 
war  upon  Benton  was  more  active  and  influential  in 
uniting  into  a  highly  efficient  political  machine  all 
those  elements  in  the  Missouri  Democracy  which 
were  hostile,  or  inclined  to  be  hostile,  to  Senator 
Benton  than  Judge  William  C.  Price,  a  cousin  of 
Sterling  Price,  the  Confederate  General.  It  appears 
that  Judge  Price  was  in  close  and  constant  communi 
cation  with  Mr.  Calhoun,  Jefferson  Davis,  John  C. 
Breckinridge,  Robert  Toombs  and  Judah  P.  Benja 
min;  and  that  upon  the  subject  of  slavery  he  was  a 
radical  of  the  radicals.  He  was  a  man  of  an  in 
tensely  religious  nature,  and  a  firm  believer  in  the 
righteousness  of  slavery.  The  perpetuation  and  ex- 

30  The  following  statement  was  reduced  to  writing  by  Roland  Hughes, 
Esq.,  of  Kansas  City,  Mo.,   and  given  to  Mr.   Connelley,  to  whom  I   am 
indebted  for  it.     "General  David  R.  Atchison  told  me,  in  a  conversation 
at  his  house,  under  the  shade  of  an  oak  tree  in  his  front  yard,  about  three 
years  before  his  death   [which  occurred  in  1886]   these  words,  'Claiborne 
F.   Jackson,  Trusten  Polk,  William   C.   Price   and  I,   entered   into   a  con 
spiracy  to  defeat  and  destroy  Benton.     We  succeeded  in  defeating  Benton, 
but  by  God,  it  retired  Dave  Atchison  from  public  life.'"     Unfortunately 
the  statement   gives  no   date   for   the  formation  of  this  "conspiracy,"   but 
there  is  good  reason  for  thinking  that  it  must  have  been  in  1844  or  1845. 
See  Goodspeed,  iv,  84. 

31  On    Benton's    political    absolutism,    see    Meigs's    Benton,    403     ff., 
especially  408-409. 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  35 

tension  of  the  "peculiar  institution"  he  sincerely  be 
lieved  to  be  indispensable  to  the  welfare  of  Missouri 
and  of  the  South.  Missouri,  he  was  convinced, 
could  not  long  remain  a  slave  State  with  Iowa  free 
on  the  north,  Illinois  free  on  the  east,  and  a  free 
State  on  the  west.  Missouri  must  therefore  con 
trive  in  some  way  to  remove  the  Missouri  Compro 
mise  prohibition,  the  chief  obstacle  to  the  westward 
extension  of  slavery.  With  the  zeal  of  a  fanatic, 
tempered  by  sound  political  discretion,  Judge  Price 
visited  all  parts  of  the  State  of  Missouri,  urging 
upon  politicians  the  special  interest  which  the  slave 
holders  of  the  State  had  in  bringing  about  in  the 
near  future  the  abrogation  of  the  old  Compromise 
inhibition.  He  even  went  so  far,  some  time  in  the 
year  1844,  as  *°  suggest  that  abrogation  to  Senator 
Benton.  Instantly  and  in  his  characteristically 
brusque  manner,  Colonel  Benton  spurned  and  re 
pudiated  the  suggestion. 

Chiefly  because  of  his  opposition  to  Mr.  Cal- 
houn's  annexation  treaty,  but  also  because  he  refused 
to  endorse  the  suggested  repeal  of  the  Compromise, 
Senator  Benton  was,  from  the  year  1844,  marked  for 
political  annihilation  by  the  aggressive  leaders  of  the 
South,  and  by  the  radical  slavery  extension  faction 
in  the  Missouri  Democracy.  Up  to  this  time  he 
and  Price  had  been  warm  friends.  They  never 
spoke  afterwards.  Judge  Price  registered  a  vow  to 
drive  Benton  from  public  life:  in  the  presence  of 
a  large  company  gathered  in  a  store  on  St.  Louis 
street  in  Springfield,  Missouri,  he  vowed  he  would 
fight  Benton  to  the  death.  To  make  it  more  open 


36  THE  REPEAL  OF 

and  public,  he  wrote  his  determination  on  the  walls 
of  the  store  where  it  remained  until  the  building  was 
torn  down  after  the  Civil  War.32 

There  is  a  lamentable  lack  of  evidence  disclos 
ing  the  actual  tactics  employed  by  the  Missouri 
radicals  in  the  next  three  or  four  years.  The  lack 
may  be  explained  in  part  by  the  necessity,  dictated 
by  practical  political  considerations,  of  proceeding 
with  silence  or  secrecy  until  a  strong  organization 
could  be  effected.  So  long  as  Benton's  prestige  in 
the  State  remained  unimpaired,  so  long  as  the  fed 
eral  patronage  falling  to  the  State  was  largely  under 
his  control,  so  long  did  he  constitute  the  chief  ob 
stacle  to  the  realization  of  the  schemes  of  Mr.  Cal- 
houn's  friends  in  Missouri.  To  have  heralded  with 
the  blare  of  trumpets  their  various  moves  to  compass 
the  ultimate  overthrow  of  Benton  might  have  been 
to  do  the  historian  a  great  service,  but  obviously  it 
would  have  stamped  the  conspirators  as  the  most  in 
experienced  of  politicians. 

Nevertheless  the  controversy  could  not  be  kept 

32  Judge  Price  always  maintained  that  the  idea  or  suggestion  of  the 
repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  originated  with  him.  Whether  or  not 
this  is  so  it  is  perhaps  impossible,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  to  determine. 
His  work  was  doubtless  important  in  creating  a  sentiment  in  western 
Missouri  favorable  to  such  a  project,  but  this  is  to  be  carefully  distin 
guished  from  the  steps  which  actually  accomplished  the  Repeal  in  1854. 
I  have  found  no  evidence  which  directly  connects  Judge  Price  with  the 
origin  of  the  Repeal  via  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill. 

To  Mr.  Connelley  I  am  indebted  for  the  facts  given  in  the  last  two 
paragraphs  in  the  text.  Mr.  Connelley  was  related  by  marriage  to  Judge 
Price,  and  was  personally  well  acquainted  with  him.  There  is  a  brief 
biographical  sketch  of  Judge  Price  in  Mr.  Connelley's  The  Provisional 
Government  of  Nebraska  Territory,  28;  this  work  is  hereafter  cited  as 
Connelley's  Prov.  Gov.  See  also  Appendix  B. 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  37 

wholly  out  of  sight.  Two  sets  of  resolutions,  intro 
duced  into  the  Legislature  which  met  in  December, 
1846,  one  pro-Benton  and  the  other  anti-Benton, 
show  how  it  was  developing.  The  following  resolu 
tions  were  approved  by  the  Governor,  February 


"Resolved,  by  the  State  of  Missouri  as  follows: 

"i.  That  the  peace,  permanency,  and  welfare  of  our  nation 
depend  upon  the  strict  adherence  to  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the 
8th  section  of  the  Act  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States, 
entitled  'an  Act  to  authorize  the  people  of  Missouri  Territory  to 
form  a  constitution  and  State  government,  and  for  the  admission 
of  such  State  into  the  Union  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original 
States,  and  to  prohibit  slavery  in  certain  territories,  approved 
March  6,  1820.' 

"2.  That  our  Senators  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
are  hereby  instructed  and  our  Representatives  requested,  to  vote 
in  accordance  with  the  provisions  and  spirit  of  the  said  8th  section 
of  said  Act  in  all  questions  which  may  come  before  them  in  relation 
to  the  organization  of  new  Territories  or  States  out  of  the  territory 
now  belonging  to  the  United  States  or  which  may  hereafter  be 
acquired  by  purchase,  treaty  or  by  conquest. 

"3.  That  a  copy  of  these  resolutions  should  be  forwarded  by 
the  Secretary  of  State  to  each  of  our  Senators  and  Representatives 
in  Congress  of  the  United  States." 

The  introduction  of  these  resolutions  appears  to 
have  been  taken  as  a  challenge  by  the  pro-slavery 

33  Laws  of  Missouri,  1846-4.7,  367.  These  resolutions  are  quoted 
in  a  speech  by  Oliver  of  Missouri  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  May  17, 
1854,  Cong.  Globe,  xxviii,  Pt.  ii,  1209,  and  ibid.,  xxxi,  726;  also  in  Benton's 
speech,  April  25,  1854,  ibid.,  xxviii,  Pt.  ii,  986,  and  ibid.,  xxxi,  557,  and  in 
his  Jefferson  City  speech,  May  26,  1849.  The  resolutions  were  presented  to 
the  House  by  Willard  P.  Hall,  of  Missouri,  and  to  the  Senate  by  Mr. 
Atchison,  on  Dec.  21,  1847,  and  Jan.  31,  1848,  respectively;  House  Journal, 
ist  Sess.,  3oth  Cong.,  138,  Senate  Journal,  141.  See  also  Switzler's 
Missouri,  269,  and  the  Jefferson  Inquirer,  Dec.  17,  1853. 


38  THE  REPEAL  OF 

faction,  for  at  the  same  session  of  the  General  As 
sembly,  Claiborne  F.  Jackson,  a  prominent  radical, 
introduced  counter  resolutions  designed  to  "instruct 
Benton  out  of  the  Senate."  34  So  strong,  however, 
was  the  majority  of  Benton  men  in  the  Legislature 
that  Jackson  was  unable  to  carry  his  resolutions  even 
through  the  Senate  where  he  introduced  them.  But 
the  opponents  of  Benton  coalesced  so  rapidly  with 
the  pro-slavery  elements  in  Missouri,  that  by  the 
time  the  next  General  Assembly  met  in  December, 
1848,  they  had  voting  strength  sufficient  to  bring 
about  the  adoption  of  the  "Jackson  Resolutions"  of 
which  the  most  important  are  the  following:3' 

34  "To  accomplish  his  [Benton's]  political  destruction  they  contrived  to 
have  passed  through  the  general  assembly  of  Missouri  during  the  winter 
of  1848-49  the  celebrated  Jackson  resolutions,  instructing  him  how  to  vote 
on  the  great  question  of  that  day  then  pending  in  the  Senate  resolutions 
of  Mr.  Calhoun.     They  knew  that  he  would  not  obey  them,  because,  first, 
of  the  disunion  doctrine  contained  in  them,  and,  second,  of  personal  resent 
ment  at  the  audacity  of  attempting  to  instruct  Benton  on  such  a  subject." 
J.  H.  Birch,  quoted  by  Hon.  A.  M.  Dockery  of  Missouri  in  Cong.  Record, 
3d  Sess.,  55th  Cong.,  Pt.  iii,  1463. 

35  The  first  two  resolutions  were  as  follows : 

"Resolved  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Missouri: 
"i.  That  the  Federal  Constitution  was  the  result  of  a  compromise 
between  the  conflicting  interests  of  the  States  which  formed  it,  and  in  no 
part  of  that  instrument  is  to  be  found  any  delegation  of  power  to  Con 
gress  to  legislate  upon  the  subject  of  slavery,  except  some  special  pro 
visions  having  in  view  the  prospective  abolition  of  the  African  slave  trade, 
made  for  the  securing  the  recovery  of  fugitive  slaves;  any  attempt,  there 
fore,  on  the  part  of  Congress  to  legislate  on  this  subject,  so  as  to  affect 
the  institution  of  slavery  in  the  States,  in  the  District  of  Columbia  or  in 
the  Territories,  is,  to  say  the  least,  a  violation  of  the  principles  upon  which 
that  instrument  was  founded. 

"2.  That  the  Territories  acquired  by  the  blood  and  treasure  of  the 
whole  nation,  ought  to  be  governed  for  the  common  benefit  of  the  people 
of  all  the  States,  and  any  organization  of  the  Territorial  governments, 
excluding  the  citizens  of  any  part  of  the  Union  from  removing  to  such 
Territories  with  their  property,  would  be  an  exercise  of  power,  by  Congress, 


THE   MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  39 

[Resolved]  "3.  That  this  General  Assembly  regard  the 
conduct  of  the  Northern  States  on  the  subject  of  slavery  as 
releasing  the  slaveholding  States  from  all  further  adherence  to 
the  basis  of  Compromise  fixed  on  by  the  Act  of  Congress  of  March 
6,  1820;  even  if  such  Act  ever  did  impose  any  obligation  upon  the 
slaveholding  States,  and  authorizes  them  to  insist  upon  their  rights 
under  the  Constitution;  but  for  the  sake  of  harmony  and  for  the 
preservation  of  our  Federal  Union,  they  will  still  sanction  the 
application  of  the  principles  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  to  the 
recent  territorial  acquisitions,  if  by  such  concession  future  aggres 
sions  upon  the  equal  rights  of  the  States  may  be  arrested  and  the 
spirit  of  anti-slavery  fanaticism  be  extinguished. 

"4.  The  right  to  prohibit  slavery  in  any  Territory,  belongs 
exclusively  to  the  people  thereof,  and  can  only  be  exercised  by 
them  in  forming  their  Constitution  for  a  State  Government,  or 
in  their  sovereign  capacity  as  an  independent  State. 

"5.  That  in  the  event  of  the  passage  of  any  Act  of  Con 
gress  conflicting  with  the  principles  herein  expressed,  Missouri  will 
be  found  in  hearty  cooperation  with  the  slaveholding  States,  in 
such  measures  as  may  be  deemed  necessary  for  our  mutual  pro 
tection  against  the  encroachments  of  Northern  fanaticism. 

"6.  That  our  Senators  in  Congress  be  instructed  and  our 
Representatives  be  requested  to  act  in  conformity  with  the  fore 
going  resolutions."  36 

The  first  appearance  of  the  "Jackson  Resolu 
tions"  37  in  the  Legislature  was  marked  by  Colonel 

inconsistent  with  the  spirit  upon  which  our  federal  compact  was  based, 
insulting  to  the  sovereignty  and  dignity  of  the  States  thus  affected,  cal 
culated  to  alienate  one  portion  of  the  Union  from  another,  and  tending 
ultimately  to  disunion." 

A  supplementary  resolution  was  adopted  instructing  the  Secretary 
of  State  to  transmit  a  copy  of  the  Resolutions  "to  each  of  our  Senators 
and  Representatives  in  Congress  and  to  the  Executive  of  each  of  the  several 
States  with  the  request  that  the  same  be  laid  before  each  of  their  respect 
ive  Legislatures." 

36  These  resolutions  are  given  in  full  in  Laws  of  Missouri,  1848-4.9, 
667,  in  Switzler's  Missouri,  265-266,  and  in  Cong.  Globe,  xxi,  Pt.  i,  97-98, 
ibid.,  xxxi,  726,  Carr's  Missouri,  223  ff.,  and  Meigs's  Benton,  409-410. 

37  Meigs,    in   his   Life   of   Benton,   denominates   these    resolutions   the 


40  THE  REPEAL  OF 

Benton  and  their  origin  was  known  to  him.  But 
though  well  aware  that  the  friends  of  Mr.  Calhoun 
had  been  in  a  "perpetual  state  of  incubation,"  since 
the  failure  of  their  plot  in  1844,  he  decided  to  let 
the  new  plot  which  they  were  hatching  "quit  its 
shell."  The  legislators  generally  he  did  not  hold 
responsible  for  the  Jackson  Resolutions.  "I  do  not 
believe,"  he  declared,  "there  exceeded  half  a  dozen 
members  in  the  two  Houses,  all  told,  who  had  the 
scienter  of  their  origin  and  design,  or  meant  harm 
to  the  country  or  myself."  He  was  confident,  there 
fore,  that  a  hint  from  himself  "would  have  stopped 
the  whole  proceeding."  But  that  would  have  done 
him  no  good:  "it  would  only  have  postponed  and 
changed  the  form  of  the  work."  Accordingly  he 
said  nothing  to  "alarm  the  operators,"  and  wrote  not 
a  word  on  the  subject  —  "not  a  word  to  any  of  the 
three  hundred  members  who  would  have  blown  the 


"Napton-Jackson  Resolutions."  In  the  newspapers  of  the  period  they  are 
constantly  and  almost  uniformly  called  the  "Jackson  Resolutions."  They 
were  introduced  into  the  Missouri  Senate  Jan.  i,  1849,  by  Carty  Wells, 
a  Democrat,  and  were  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Federal  Relations  of 
which  Claiborne  F.  Jackson  was  chairman.  As  chairman  of  this  Com 
mittee,  Jackson  reported  the  resolutions  in  the  form  in  which  they  passed, 
and  hence  the  name,  Jackson  Resolutions.  The  resolutions  were  ap 
proved,  March  10,  1849.  The  final  vote  in  the  House  on  their  adoption 
stood,  53  to  27:  all  but  four  of  the  negative  votes  were  cast  by  Whigs; 
Switzler's  Missouri,  265-266.  See  also  Davis  and  Durrie's  Missouri,  141, 
Paxton's  Annals  of  Platte  County,  no  (hereafter  cited  as  Paxton's  Annals)  ; 
Jefferson  Inquirer,  June  n  and  Aug.  20,  1853;  Missouri  House  Journal, 
1848-49,  Appendix,  219  ff.  The  real  author  of  the  Resolutions  appears 
to  have  been  Judge  W.  B.  Napton ;  Meigs's  Benton,  410,  Goodspeed,  iv,  103 
ff.,  and  Benton's  speech  at  Fayette,  Mo.,  Sept.  i,  1849. 


THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  41 

resolutions  sky-high  if  they  had  known  their  origin 
and  design."  38 

Had  it  not  been  for  Colonel  Benton's  very  dif 
ferent  and  extraordinary  course  in  relation  to  these 
Resolutions  at  a  subsequent  date,  no  more  significance 
might  have  attached  to  them  than  to  similar  res 
olutions  aimed  against  the  Wilmot  Proviso  and 
passed  about  the  same  time  by  the  Legislatures  of 
Texas,  Maryland,  Virginia,  Georgia,  and  North  Car 
olina.39  But  on  the  ninth  day  of  May,  1849,  Colonel 
Benton  issued  his  famous  "Appeal"  to  the  people  of 
Missouri  from  the  legislative  instructions  contained 
in  the  Jackson  Resolutions.40  "If  they  confirm  the 
instructions,"  said  Benton,  "I  shall  give  them  an  op 
portunity  to  find  a  Senator  to  carry  their  will  into 
effect,  as  I  cannot  do  anything  to  dissolve  this  Union, 
or  to  array  one-half  of  it  against  the  other."  "I  do 
not  admit  the  dissolution  of  the  Union,"  he  continued, 
"to  be  a  remedy  to  be  prescribed  by  statesmen  for 
the  diseases  of  the  body  politic  any  more  than  I  ad 
mit  death,  or  suicide  to  be  a  remedy  for  the  diseases 
of  the  natural  body.  Cure  and  not  kill,  is  the  only 
remedy  which  my  mind  can  contemplate  in  either 

38  The  phrases  quoted  in  this  paragraph  are  from  Benton's  Jefferson 
City  speech. 

•^9  These  resolutions  may  be  found  in  the  Laws  of  the  State  of  Texas, 
1848-49,  93  if.;  Laws  of  the  General  Assembly  of  Maryland,  1849-50, 
Resolution  No.  37;  Acts  of  the  State  of  Georgia,  1849-50,  405  ff. ;  Acts 
of  the  General  Assembly  of  Virginia,  1848-49,  257  ff. ;  ibid.,  1849-50,  233 
ff.;  Laws  of  North  Carolina,  1848-49,  237  ff. 

40  The  "Appeal"  took  the  form  of  a  letter  addressed  to  "The  People 
of  Missouri."  It  may  be  found  in  the  Western  Eagle  (Cape  Girardeau, 
Mo.),  May  u,  1849,  copied  from  the  St.  Louis  Union',  also  in  Niles's 
Register,  Ixxv,  332  (May  23,  1849). 


42  THE  REPEAL  OF 

case I  appeal  from  these  instructions  to  the 

people  of  Missouri  —  to  the  whole  body  of  the  people 
—  and  in  due  [time]  will  give  my  reasons  for  doing 
so I  shall  abide  the  decision  of  the  whole  peo 
ple  and  nothing  less." 

The  "due  time"  soon  arrived.  On  the  twenty- 
sixth  of  May,  1849,  in  a  speech  of  great  length,  de 
livered  in  the  hall  of  the  House  of  Representatives  at 
Jefferson  City,  Senator  Benton  denounced  the  Jack 
son  Resolutions  in  the  most  unsparing  terms,  declar 
ing  that  they  were  aimed  at  himself  and  the  stability 
of  the  Union,  and  reiterated  his  appeal  from  the 
Legislature  to  the  people.41 

In  the  Jackson  Resolutions  he  affected  to  discern 
the  hand  of  his  old  enemy.  The  burden  of  his  ar 
gument  was  their  substantial  identity  with  the  reso 
lutions  introduced  into  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States  by  Mr.  Calhoun  on  the  nineteenth  day  of  Feb 
ruary,  1847.  If  this  identity  could  be  established, 
Mr.  Calhoun's  well-known  hostility  to  Senator  Ben- 
ton,  his  doubtful  loyalty  to  the  Union,  and  the  dis 
credit  cast  upon  his  resolutions  in  the  Senate  would 
materially  assist  Senator  Benton  in  the  difficult  task 
of  justifying,  before  a  constituency  which  cherished 
the  right  of  instruction  as  something  sacred,  his  for 
mal  appeal  from  the  instructions  of  the  General  As 
sembly. 

41  This  Jefferson  City  speech  may  be  found  in  a  bound  volume  of 
pamphlets  in  the  library  of  the  Missouri  Historical  Society,  St.  Louis;  in 
pamphlet  form  in  the  library  of  the  Wisconsin  Historical  Society;  also  in 
Niles's  Register,  Ixxv,  390  ff.  "The  whole  conception,  concoction  and  passage 
of  the  resolutions  was  done  upon  conspiracy,  perfected  by  fraud.  It  was  a 
plot  to  get  me  out  of  the  Senate  and  out  of  the  way  of  the  disunion 
plotters."  —  Benton's  speech  at  Fayette,  September  i,  1849. 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  43 

The  Jackson  Resolutions,  Benton  declared,  were 
"a  mere  copy  of  the  Calhoun  resolutions  offered  in 
the  Senate"  and  denounced  by  him  at  the  time  "as 
a  fire-brand,  intended  for  electioneering  and  dis 
union  purposes."  42  The  Calhoun  resolutions  were 
the  "prototype"  of  those  of  the  Missouri  Legislature. 
He  could  (or  would)  see  no  difference  in  them  "but 
in  the  time  contemplated  for  the  dissolution  of  the 
Union,  Mr.  Calhoun's  tending  'directly,  and  those 
of  Missouri,  ^ultimately  to  that  point.  In  other 
respects  they  are  identical."  The  Calhoun  resolu 
tions  were  "the  parent"  of  the  Jackson  Resolutions. 
"When  the  original  is  invalidated,  the  copy  is  of  no 

avail He  [Mr.  Calhoun]  is  the  head  mover 

and  contriver."  Not  only  was  the  authorship  of  both 
sets  of  resolutions  identical,  but  the  purpose  of  each 
was  the  same,  namely,  "to  deny  the  right  of  Congress 
to  prevent  or  prohibit  slavery  in  territories  and  to 
denounce  a  dissolution  of  the  Union  if  it  did.  One 
was  parent  to  the  other,  and  I  presume  no  man  will 
deny  it."  43  The  real  design  in  the  Resolutions,  Ben- 
ton  asserted  at  another  point  in  his  speech,  was  to 
constitute  "a  pledge  of  the  State  to  back  Mr.  Cal- 

42  Benton  had   also  denounced  these  Calhoun  resolutions  in   a  speech 
delivered  at  a  dinner  given  in  his  honor  in  St.  Louis  early  in  June,  1847. 
N lies' s  Register,  Ixxii,  222-223,  quoting  the  St.  Louis  Republican.     See  Mr. 
Calhoun's  Reply  to  Col.  Benton  mentioned  in  note  45. 

43  To  this  last  sweeping  assertion,  "truth  and  justice"  compelled  Benton 
to  make   an  exception:     "I  have  no  idea  that  the  mass  of  members  who 
voted  for  the  Resolutions  in  the  last  General  Assembly  had  any  idea  that 
they   were   Calhoun's   or  considered   the   dissolution  of   the   Union,   which 
they  announce,  as  a  thing  in  actual  contemplation.     But  they  are  not  the 
less  injurious  on  that  account.     They  are  the  Act  of  the  General  Assembly, 
and  stand  for  the  act  of  the  State,  and  bind  it  to  the  car  of  Mr.  Calhoun, 
and  encourage  him  more  than  any  other  event  that  has  taken  place " 


44  THE  REPEAL  OF 

houn  in  his  designs  to  put  the  State  under  his  lead," 
and  to  stop  Benton's  "opposition  to  his  mad  career:" 
to  understand  the  Jackson  Resolutions  and  "to  see 
their  design,  you  must  know"  Calhoun's.44  The 
greater  part  of  the  speech  thus  takes  the  form  of  a 
violent  attack  upon  Mr.  Calhoun.45 

44  At  another  point  in  this  speech  Benton  said:  the  Jackson  Resolu 
tions  "were  copied  from  Mr.  Calhoun;   and  to  see  their  design  you  must 
know  his.     His  were  aimed  at  the  Union  ....   and  at  the  members  from 
the  slaveholding  States  who  would  not  follow  his  lead  —  myself  especially" 
The  italics  are  mine.     See  Mr.  Calhoun's  Reply  to  Col.  Benton  mentioned 
in  note  45. 

45  On   June   23,    1849,    Calhoun   wrote   to   Andrew   Pickens   Calhoun: 
".    .    .    .   You  see  that  Benton  has  openly  deserted  and  that  he  pours  out 
his  venom   against  me.     [Referring  to  the  Jefferson  City  speech.]     I   am 
averse  to  touching  him,  and,  if  his  aim  had  been  against  me  exclusively, 
I  would  not  notice  him.     But  such  is  not  the  fact.     He  strikes  at  the  South 
and  its  cause  through  me ;  and  I  have  concluded  to  repel  his  attack  against 
myself,   to  the  extent  that  it   is  necessary  to   repel   it   against  the   South. 
His  whole  speech  is  a  mass  of  false  statements,  illogical  conclusions  and 
contradictions.     I  expect  to  appear  in  the  Messenger,  in  the  number  suc 
ceeding  the  next.     Neither  he  [n]or  his  cause  will  gain  anything  by  the 

attack "     Calhoun's  "Correspondence"  in  Am.  Hist.  Assn.  Report, 

1899,  ">  768-769. 

Calhoun's  Reply  to  Benton,  mentioned  in  the  letter  just  quoted,  first 
appeared  in  the  Pendleton  Messenger,  July  14,  1849,  and  was  copied  into 
the  Charleston  Courier,  July  17,  1849,  where  it  fills  over  seven  columns. 
It  is  also  to  be  found  in  the  Library  of  Congress  in  a  pamphlet  entitled, 
Mr.  Calhoun's  Reply  to  Col.  Benton  (n.  p.,  n.  d.). 

The  Reply  is  addressed  "To  the  People  of  the  Southern  States."  Mr. 
Calhoun  says  that  the  main  purpose  of  the  Reply  was  to  repel  "all  the 
charges  intended  to  shake  your  confidence  in  my  fidelity  to  you,  in  refer 
ence  to  the  most  vital  of  all  subjects  to  the  South;"  and  to  demonstrate 
that  "they  all  rest  either  on  statements  that  are  utterly  false;  or  con 
clusions  that  are  entirely  erroneous  or  inconclusive All  that 

was  directed  against  me  personally,  and  not  intended  to  impeach  my 
fidelity  to  you  and  your  cause"  is  passed  over.  "I  have  also  passed  over 
the  torrent  of  abuse  he  poured  out  against  me  ....  because  I  deem  it 
beneath  my  notice." 

The  Reply  contributes  nothing  to  the  history  of  the  Jackson  Resolutions 
or  the  course  of  Missouri  politics,  and  is  therefore  of  slight  value  in  this 


THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  45 

In  order  to  cast  still  further  discredit  upon  the 
Jackson  Resolutions,  Colonel  Benton  pointed  to  cir 
cumstances  connected  with  their  passage  through  the 
Legislature  which  seriously  impaired  their  force  as 
"instructions:" 


connection.  The  opening  paragraphs,  indicating  Calhoun's  contemptuous 
opinion  of  Benton,  may  be  quoted  here: 

"Several  reasons  would  have  prevented  me  from  taking  any  notice  of 
Col.  Benton,  if  his  attack  in  his  late  speech,  delivered  in  the  Capitol 
of  Missouri,  had  been  directed  exclusively  against  me.  The  line  of  con 
duct  I  have  prescribed  to  myself,  in  reference  to  him,  is  to  have  as  little 
to  do  with  him  as  possible;  and,  I  accordingly,  never  notice  what  comes 
from  him,  even  in  his  character  as  Senator,  when  I  can  avoid  doing  so 
consistently  with  my  public  duties.  I  regard  him  in  a  light  very  different 
from  what  he  seems  to  regard  me,  if  we  may  judge  from  the  frequency 
and  violence  of  his  attacks  on  me.  He  seems  to  think  I  stand  in  his  way, 
and  that  I  am  ever  engaged  in  some  scheme  to  put  him  down.  I,  on  the 
contrary,  have  never  for  a  moment  thought  of  raising  him  to  the  level 
of  a  competitor,  or  rival,  nor  considered  it  of  any  importance  to  me 
whether  he  should  be  put  down  or  not.  He  must  think  he  has  something 
to  gain  by  assailing  me;  I,  on  the  contrary,  feel  I  have  nothing  to  gain 
by  noticing  him,  and.  when  compelled  to  do  so,  am  satisfied  if  I  escape 
without  some  loss  of  self-respect.  I  have  another  reason  for  not  desiring 
to  notice  him  on  the  present  occasion.  All  his  charges  against  me,  with 
few  and  trifling  exceptions,  are  but  the  reiterations  of  those  often  made 
heretofore  by  himself  and  others,  and  which  I  have  met  and  successfully 
repelled  in  my  place  in  the  Senate  or  community,  there  can  be  no  better 
proof,  than  is  afforded  in  the  laborious  and  tiresome  effort  he  made  in 
his  present  speech  to  revive  and  give  them  circulation. 

"Under  the  influence  of  these  reasons,  I  would  have  remained  silent 
had  I  alone  been  concerned.  But  such  is  not  the  case.  His  blow  is  aimed 
much  more  at  you  than  me.  He  strikes  at  me  for  the  double  purpose 
of  weakening  me  in  your  confidence,  and  of  striking  at  you  and  your  cause 
through  me,  which  he  thinks  can  be  done  more  effectually  indirectly,  than 
directly.  Thus  regarding  his  attack,  I  feel  it  to  be  a  duty  I  owe  you  and 
your  cause  to  repel  it." 

Commenting  upon  Calhoun's  reply,  the  Western  Eagle  (Whig)  said: 
"The  issue  is  fully  made  up  between  these  two  distinguished  Democratic 
rivals;  and  as  the  burden  of  proof  rests  with  Benton,  he  must  sustain  his 
charges  or  be  considered  a  slanderer."  (Aug.  3,  1849.) 


46  THE  REPEAL  OF 

"The  Resolutions  were  introduced  at  the  very  beginning  of 
the  session;  they  lay  torpid  until  its  end.  The  plotters  were 
awaiting  the  signal,  from  the  'leading  friend'  —  waiting  the  Cal- 
houn  address.  The  moment  they  got  it,  they  acted,  although  it 
was  too  late  for  the  Resolutions  to  have  the  effect  of  instructions. 
They  were  passed  after  Congress  had  adjourned,  and  after  it 
must  have  been  believed  that  the  subject  to  which  they  relate  had 
been  disposed  of;  for  it  was  notorious  that  the  territorial  govern 
ment  bills  were  in  process  of  enactment,  and  in  fact  only  failed 
after  midnight  on  the  last  night  of  the  session,  and  that  on  dis 
agreement  between  the  two  Houses;  and  their  failure,  on  the  3rd 
of  March,  was  not  known  at  Jefferson  on  the  7th  —  the  day  of 
passing  the  Resolutions.  It  was  too  late  to  pass  the  Resolutions 
for  the  purpose  of  instructing  me  how  to  vote  at  Washington. 
It  was  too  late  for  that;  but  was  early  enough  for  the  summer 
campaign  at  home;  and  therefore  they  were  passed." 

Then  with  all  the  energy  he  could  summon, 
Benton  hurled  his  anathema  at  the  plotters: 

"Between  them  and  me,  henceforth  and  forever,  a  high  wall, 
and  a  deep  ditch!  and  no  communion,  no  compromise,  no  caucus 
with  them.  ....  Woe  to  the  judges,  if  any  such  there  are  in 
this  work!  The  children  of  Israel  could  not  stand  the  govern 
ment  of  Judges;  nor  can  we "  46 

Having  demonstrated  his  main  proposition  that 
the  Missouri  Resolutions  were  copied  from  those  of 
Mr.  Calhoun  and  that  "the  subversion  of  the  Union 
is  intended,"  Senator  Benton  declared  in  closing: 

"In  the  execution  of  this  design  I  cannot  be  an  instrument, 
nor  can  I  believe  that  the  people,  or  the  mass  of  the  General 
Assembly  wish  it ;  and  I  deem  it  right  to  have  a  full  understanding 
with  my  constituents  on  the  whole  matter. 

"I   therefore  appeal   from  the  instructions  I   have   received, 


46  The  last  sentence  was  probably  directed  against  Judge  Price,  Judge 
Napton,  Judge  James  H.  Birch,  one  of  the  most  bitter  of  Benton's  enemies, 
and  Senator  Atchison  who,  before  his  election  to  the  Senate,  had  held  a 
judgeship. 


THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  47 

because  they  are  in  conflict  with  instructions  already  received  and 
obeyed  47  —  because  they  did  not  emanate  from  any  known  desire, 
or  understood  will,  of  the  people  —  because  they  contain  uncon 
stitutional  expositions  of  the  Constitution  which  I  am  sworn  to 
support  —  because  they  require  me  to  promote  disunion  —  because 
they  are  copied  from  resolutions  hatched  for  great  mischief,  which 
I  have  a  right  to  oppose,  and  did  oppose  in  my  place  as  Senator 
in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  and  which  I  cannot  cease  to 
oppose  without  personal  disgrace  and  official  dereliction  of  public 
duty  —  and  because  I  think  it  due  to  the  people  to  give  them  an 
opportunity  to  consider  proceedings  so  gravely  affecting  them,  and 
on  which  they  have  not  been  consulted. 

"I  appeal  to  the  people  —  and  the  whole  body  of  the  people. 
It  is  a  question  above  party,  and  should  be  kept  above  it.  I  mean 
to  keep  it  there."  48 


4?  Referring  to  the  Resolutions  passed  on  the  fifteenth  of  February, 
1847,  already  quoted.  "How  different  — how  irreconcilably  hostile  to  each 
other  —  the  two  sets  of  resolutions!  One  makes  the  peace,  permanency, 
and  the  welfare  of  our  national  Union,  dependent  upon  the  strict  adherence 
to  the  spirit  and  terms  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  in  its  application  to 
new  territory  —  that  is  to  say,  upon  the  constitutional  right,  and  the  equita 
ble  exercise  of  that  right,  to  legislate  upon  Slavery  in  the  new  territory, 
and  to  admit  it  in  part,  and  prevent  it  in  part;  the  other  makes  the  dissolu 
tion  of  the  Union  dependent  upon  the  same  platform  of  fact  and  principle 
—  denying  the  right  of  Congress  to  permit  or  prohibit  slavery  in  a 
territory  —  asserting  its  prohibition  to  be  a  violation  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  —  an  insult  to  the  sovereignty  of  the  States  —  and  tending 
to  the  dissolution  of  the  Union.  Sad  contradiction  this,  when  the  same 
remedy  is  both  to  cure  and  to  kill!  and  although  the  political  doctors  may 
prescribe  both,  yet,  surely,  the  political  patient  who  has  taken  one,  has  a 
right  to  talk  a  little  with  the  doctors  before  he  swallows  the  other." 

48  The  following  occurs  in  an  editorial  review  of  Benton's  Jefferson 
City  speech  in  the  Western  Eagle,  June  i,  1849:  "This  speech 
fully  defines  Benton's  position  upon  the  question  of  slavery  in  the  terri 
tories  and  those  who  hesitated  to  pronounce  sentence  upon  him  until  they 
heard  his  defence,  may  now  be  assured  that  he  is  utterly  and  altogether 
in  favor  of  Wilmot's  Proviso  and  contends  that  Congress  has  the  power 
and  should  exercise  it  in  prohibiting  the  introduction  of  slavery  into  all 
of  the  territory  acquired  from  Mexico.  Can  Wilmot  or  any  Northern 
Barnburner  do  more?  The  Colonel,  conscious  of  the  indignation  he  must 


48  THE  REPEAL  OF 

This  appeal  from  the  legislative  instructions 
Senator  Benton  immediately  followed  up  with  a  can 
vass  of  the  State  conducted  with  characteristic  energy 
and  aggressiveness.  Over  the  entire  State  he  went, 49 
even  invading  the  western  counties  where  his  ene- 

encounter  from  the  people  of  Missouri  for  deserting  their  interests  at  a 
crisis  when  his  assistance  is  most  needed,  uses  much  tact  and  adroitness 
in  endeavoring  to  avert  the  well-merited  rebuke  which  he  will  receive, 
by  directing  the  attention  of  the  people  to  the  course  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  the 
action  of  public  meetings  and  several  legislatures  in  the  Southern  States. 
Calhoun  appears  to  be  an  evil  genius  that  seems  to  haunt  him  both  by 

day  and  night Are  the  people  of  Missouri  so  completely  bound 

hand  and  foot  to  the  car  of  Benton,  that  they  will  suffer  themselves  to  be 
dragged  into  such  doctrines?  Are  the  dominant  party  of  this  State,  who 
have  hitherto  acknowledged  this  man  to  be  their  leader,  so  completely 
under  his  control  that  they  are  bound  to  obey  all  his  behests,  'to  turn  about 
and  jump  about'  as  he  may  command  them?  The  resolutions  in  to-day's 
paper  show  so  far  as  this  part  of  the  State  is  concerned,  'that  the  scepter 
has  departed  from  Judah,'  and  the  friends  of  the  great  Humbug  are 
becoming  few  and  far  between " 

The  resolutions  mentioned  in  the  last  sentence  were  adopted  at  a 
meeting  held  at  Jackson,  Missouri,  May  26,  1849,  "with  regard  to  the 
propriety  of  agitating  the  question  of  Wilmot's  Proviso  or  Barnburnerism 
in  this  county  or  in  this  part  of  the  State."  The  resolutions  endorsed  the 
Jackson  legislative  Resolutions,  and  included  the  following:  "Resolved, 
That  we  receive  the  appeal  of  Thomas  H.  Benton  from  the  Resolutions 
of  the  last  Legislature  ....  with  mortification,  astonishment,  and  as 
unprecedented:  that  we  believe  it  the  duty  of  the  Representatives  to  obey 
the  instructions  of  their  constituents;  and  that  the  Legislature  is  the  only 
legitimate  organ  through  which  the  people  of  the  State  can  speak  to  or 
communicate  with  their  Senators  in  the  National  Legislature.  That  we 
shall  postpone  any  further  consideration  of  said  appeal  to  some  further 
occasion." 

"Resolved,  That  we  cordially  approve  of  the  course  of  the  Hon.  David 
R.  Atchison  on  the  slavery  question,  and  for  his  having  united  in  the 
spirited  and  patriotic  appeal  of  the  convention  of  Southern  members  of 
Congress  to  their  constituents  —  eloquently  warning  them  against  abolition 
encroachments,  and  defending  their  inalienable  constitutional  rights." 

One  resolution  invited  Benton  to  visit  that  section  of  the  State  and 
defend  or  explain  his  appeal,  an  invitation  which  he  accepted  on  Nov.  7, 
1849.  For  the  comment  of  the  St.  Louis  Union,  a  staunch  Benton  organ, 
upon  Benton's  speech,  see  the  Western  Eagle,  June  8,  1849. 

49  The  itinerary  of  Senator  Benton  on  this  canvass,  so  far  as  I  have 


THE   MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  49 

mies  were  most  numerous  and  most  desperate.  Ben- 
ton's  speeches  on  this  tour  were  substantial  repeti 
tions  of  the  Jefferson  City  speech.  His  opinions 
were  expressed  in  language  most  unrestrained.  On 
at  least  one  occasion  his  vehement  personal  denun 
ciation  of  a  supporter  of  the  Jackson  Resolutions  in 
the  audience  threatened  serious  disorder.50  As  the 
canvass  progressed  Benton's  utterances  became  more 
and  more  bitter  and  polemical.  There  lurked  in 
the  Jackson  Resolutions,  he  reiterated,  "the  spirit  of 
nullification,"  of  "insubordination  to  law,"  and  of 
"treason."  51  Again  and  again  he  denounced  them 
as  "entertaining  the  covert  purpose  of  disrupting  the 

been  able  to  discover  it,  was  as  follows:  on  June  9  he  spoke  at  Columbia; 
June  16,  at  Liberty;  June  18,  at  Platte  City;  July  16,  at  Liberty;  August 
9,  at  St.  Joseph;  Sept.  i,  at  Fayette;  October  17,  at  St.  Louis;  November  5, 
at  Ste.  Genevieve ;  November  6,  at  Perryville ;  and  November  7,  at  Jackson. 

50  At  Platte  City,  June  18,  1849.     William  M.  Paxton,  Esq.,  was  present 
and  thus  describes  what  took  place:     "In  his  circuit  of  the  State,  Benton 

appeared  at  Platte  City.     A  stand  had  been  erected The  town  was 

full  of  people  opposed  to  Benton.     At  the  stand  there  were  only  two  or  three 
hundred.     Representative  Wilkerson,  who  had  voted  for  the  resolutions,  took 
a  prominent  place  immediately  in  front  of  the  speaker.     I  was  reclining 
on  the  grass  in  the  rear,  conversing  with  Col.  J.  W.  Reid,  who  had  just 
returned    from    the    Mexican   War.     Suddenly   Benton's    voice    rose   to   its 
highest  pitch,  and  Col.  Reid  instantly  sprang  to  his  feet  and  dashed  to  the 
stand.     I   followed   and   found   him   standing   at   Benton's   side,   with   two 
revolvers   in   hand,   and  two   more   at   his  sides.     Wilkerson   having  pro 
nounced  some  statement  of  Benton's   a  'lie,'  the  latter  was  pouring  bitter 
denunciation   on  the   treasonable   Legislature,    and    pointing   the   finger   of 
scorn  and  the  voice  of  imprecation  upon  the  pale  and  crouching  form  of 
Wilkerson.     Benton  was  severe  in  his  denunciation  of  Judge  Birch,   and 
brought  charges   for  which   a  suit  of  slander  was   instituted,   but  which 
never  came  to  trial."  —  Paxton's  Annals,  117.     See  also  Benton's  speech  at 
Fayette,  Sept.   i,    1849. 

51  "The  Resolutions,  taken  altogether,   are  false  in  their  facts,  incen 
diary  in  their  temper,  disunion  in  their  object,  nullification  in  their  essence, 

high  treason  in  their  remedy,  and  usurpation  in  their  character " 

Benton  at  Fayette,  Sept.  i,  1849. 


50  THE  REPEAL  OF 

national  Union  and  of  misleading  the  people  of  Mis 
souri  into  cooperation  with  the  slaveholding  States 
for  that  purpose."  Not  content  with  condemning 
the  Resolutions  themselves,  Benton  assailed  their  au 
thors  with  the  bitterest  diatribe  and  most  vehement 
invective,  mingled  and  interspersed  liberally  with 
profanity;  in  all  of  which  arts  of  the  western  stump 
orator  Benton  was  past  master.  These  speeches,  cir 
culated  in  pamphlet  form,  "set  the  State  ablaze"  as 
had  no  other  event  in  its  history.52  From  this  time 
until  after  the  passage  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill 
in  1854,  the  Jackson  Resolutions  and  Benton's  "Ap 
peal"  constituted  the  platforms  or  rallying  points  of 
the  radical  and  conservative  Democrats  in  Missouri 
respectively  who  henceforth  are  usually  denominated 
Bentonites  and  anti-Bentonites. 53 

52  Switzler's  Missouri,  269;   Can's  Missouri,  225   ff. ;   Meigs's  Benton, 
413.     For  a  good  example  of  Benton's  style,  see  the  closing  remarks  of  his 
Fayette  speech.     Of  his  speech  at  St.  Louis  on  Oct.  17,  the  Western  Eagle 
said  (Oct.  26,  1849):     "The  speech  of  Col.  Benton  at  St.  Louis  lately  was 
of  that  coarse,  bitter  and  denunciatory  character  which  has  exhibited  itself 
in  all  his  speeches  throughout  the  State.     His  abuse  of  J.  C.  Calhoun  and 
his  denunciation  of  all  those  opposed  to  him,  show  plainly  that  his  equa 
nimity  has  been  disturbed.     The  dignity  of  the  Senator  has  been  thrown 
aside,    and    the    tyrannical,    bullying    disposition    of    the    man    has    fairly 
developed  itself " 

53  On  Aug.  20,  1853,  when  the  fight  between  Benton  and  Atchison  was 
at  its  height,   the  following  appeared  in   an  editorial  of  the  Jefferson  In 
quirer:  "   .    .    .    .   The   original    cause   of   the   division   in   this    State   was 
the  passing  of  the  so-called  Jackson  Resolutions  and  the  sale  of  Col.  Benton 

out  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States The  Jackson  nullifying 

resolutions  were   gotten  up   for  this  purpose   [ousting  Benton]    and   every 
Democrat  who  would  not  join  in  the  crusade  against  Missouri's  beloved 

Statesman,  was  denounced  as  a  freesoil  traitor,  etc We  have  our 

terms  of  compromise  and  shall  adhere  to  them  until  they  are  complied  with. 
....  These  terms  are:  the   reelection  of  Col.  Benton  to  the   Senate  of 
the  United  States,  from  which  he  was  sold  by  a  few  traitors  in  the  Dem 
ocratic  party,  and  the  repeal  of  the  Jackson  nullifying  resolutions"     The 
italics  are  mine. 


CHAPTER  II 

Missouri  Politics,  1844-1852  (continued) -James  S.  Green  s  Re 
ply  to  Benton's  " Appeal" -Benton  s  Election  to  the  House  in 
1852. 

In  public  addresses  and  letters,  men  of  great 
ability  denied  the  soundness  of  Benton's  views,  de 
nounced  his  course  in  refusing  to  obey  the  instructions 
of  the  Legislature,  and  justified  their  own.  Among 
these  public  and  outspoken  critics 54  of  Benton,  none 
were  more  conspicuous  than  David  R.  Atchison  and 
James  S.  Green.  Atchison  was  Benton's  colleague 
in  the  Senate,  having  been  reflected  for  the  full 
term  by  the  General  Assembly  which  had  passed 
the  Jackson  Resolutions.  Green  was  a  brilliant 


54  As  early  as  the  first  of  July,  1849,  the  following  Democratic  news 
papers,  and  perhaps  others,  were  actively  opposed  to  Benton:  the  Metro 
politan,  at  Jefferson  City;  the  Platte  Argus,  at  Platte  City;  the  Missouri 
Courier,  the  Southern  Standard,  the  Fayette  Democrat,  the  Howard 
County  Banner,  the  Northeastern  Reporter,  the  Louisiana  (Mo.)  Banner, 
and  Grand  River  Chronicle.  The  principal  papers  supporting  Benton  were 
the  St.  Louis  Union,  and  the  Jefferson  Inquirer.  The  Whig  press  was 
on  the  whole  anti-Benton.  In  this  connection  see  the  Western  Eagle,  July 
6,  1849. 

Both  Benton  and  Judge  Birch  (anti)  spoke  at  Liberty,  July  16,  1849. 
Resolutions  were  adopted  declaring  in  substance  that  Benton  was  bound 
in  honor  to  himself  and  duty  to  the  State  either  to  obey  the  instructions  of 
the  Legislature  or  to  resign.  The  resolutions  also  declared  implicit  con 
fidence  in  the  ability,  integrity  and  correct  principles  of  Senator  Atchison. — 
The  Western  Eagle,  July  27,  1849. 

I  have  been  able  to  discover  very  little  definite  information  concern 
ing  the  activities  of  the  anti-Benton  leaders  in  this  campaign. 


£2  THE  REPEAL  OF 

young  lawyer  of  St.  Louis,  a  member  of  the  House  of 
Representatives,  and  destined,  in  1857,  to  succeed 
Atchison  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  Both 
Atchison  and  Green  wrote  letters  designed  for  pub 
lication  in  which  they  set  forth  at  great  length  their 
position  upon  the  issues  raised  by  the  Resolutions 
and  Benton's  appeal.  Mr.  Green  wrote  probably 
the  ablest  reply  to  Benton  and  made  the  most  adroit 
attack  of  the  campaign  upon  Benton's  attitude  to 
ward  the  subject  of  Slavery.55 

Green's  letter,56  dated  Washington,  D.  C.,  De- 

55  Respecting   the   importance   of    Green    in   the   war   against   Benton, 
James  G.  Elaine  said:     "Green  had  done  more  than   any  other  man  in 
Missouri  to  break  the  power  of  Thomas   H.   Benton   as   a   leader  of  the 
Democracy.     His  arraignment  of  Benton  before  the  people  of  Missouri  in 
1849,  when  he   was   but  thirty-two  years   of   age,   was   one   of   the   most 
aggressive  and  successful  warfares  in  our  political  annals."  —  Twenty  Years 
of   Congress,   i,  273.     I   have   been   able  to   discover   very  little   evidence 
other  than  the  letter  mentioned  above  which  justifies  this  high  estimate  of 
Green's  efforts  against  Benton. 

I  have  also  been  unable  to  discover  a  copy  of  the  letter  which  Atchison 
wrote.  Its  existence  is  mentioned,  and  a  paragraph  from  it  is  quoted 
by  the  Jefferson  Inquirer,  May  21,  1853.  The  following,  occuring  in  the 
Western  Eagle,  may  be  an  allusion  to  this  letter: 

"The  Hon.  David  R.  Atchison,  U.  S.  Senator  from  this  State,  has  pub 
lished  a  reply  to  certain  resolutions  adopted  at  a  meeting  held  in  Platte 
City,  June  4th,  1849,  m  which  he  defends  his  course  in  acting  last  winter 
with  the  Southern  members  of  Congress  in  signing  the  address  which 
they  adopted;  he  also  fully  coincides  with  the  Jackson  Resolutions  adopted 
by  the  Legislature  at  its  last  session  and  promises  implicit  obedience 

to  the  instructions  which  they  contain His  position  [upon 

the  Wilmot  Proviso]  is  exactly  opposite  to  that  of  Benton "  July 

6,  1849. 

"He  [Atchison]  was  the  only  Senator  from  Missouri  during  Benton's 
service  who  dared  set  himself  up  in  opposition  to  Benton.  In  the  division 
of  the  Democratic  party  in  Missouri  which  came  soon  after  the  Mexican 
War,  Atchison  led  the  pro-slavery  and  pro-Southern  element  as  against 
the  old  Jacksonian  and  Unionist  ingredient  which  had  Benton  for  a 
chieftain."  —  Goodspeed,  iv,  82. 

56  Letter  of  James  S.   Green  of  Missouri  to  Messrs.  John  S.  Parish, 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  53 

cember  10,  1849,  opens  with  a  discussion  and  em 
phatic  endorsement  of  the  right  of  State  Legislatures 
to  instruct  Senators  in  Congress.  Benton's  course 
in  refusing  obedience,  amounting  to  "a  practical 
abandonment  of  the  doctrine  of  instruction/' S7  is 
then  taken  up  for  the  purpose  of  discrediting  the 
Senator  in  the  eyes  of  the  Missouri  Democracy. 
The  writer  then  endeavors  to  show  that  the  Jackson 
Resolutions,  literally  interpreted,  imposed  no  obli 
gations  with  which  a  person  holding  Colonel  Ben- 
ton's  views  of  the  power  of  Congress  over  slavery  in 
the  Territories  could  not  consistently  comply. 58 

John  W.  Minor,  Thomas  Roberts,  Wesley  Burks,  and  others,  citizens  of 
Schuyler  County,  Mo.  A  copy  of  this  letter  in  pamphlet  form  is  in  the 
possession  of  the  Missouri  Historical  Society,  St.  Louis. 

57  "Colonel  Benton's  appeal,  and  present  course,  amount  to  a  practical 
abandonment  of  the  doctrine  of  instruction;  and  for  that  reason,  if  for  no 
other,  I  could  not  approbate  his  conduct.     True,  he  does  not  in  so  many 
words  deny  the  right  of  the  Legislature  to  instruct  the  Senators;  but  while 
he  admits  this,  he  does  that  which,  for  all  practical  purposes,  renders  the 
right  of  instruction  of  no  effect.     By  his  'appeal'  he  designs  to  overreach 
and  supersede  the  expressed  will  of  the  legislative  authority.     He  substi 
tutes  what  he  may  choose  to  consider  the  sentiments  of  tumultuous  crowds, 
for  the  declared  will  of  the  people,  as  expressed  through  their  only  con 
stitutional  organ.     And  in  his  strange  proceedings  he  constitutes  himself 
not  only  the  appellant,  and  advocate,  but  also  the  judge  in  his  own  case, 
and  we  therefore  may  expect  him  to  decide  according  to  his  own  inclination. 
.    .    .    ."    Green's  Letter. 

58  "And  it  is  worthy  of  notice  that  our  resolutions  of  instruction  do  not 
require  of  Colonel  Benton  any  vote,  or  any  act,  which  can  conflict  with 
his  declared  opinions  of  the  Constitution  on  the  subject  of  slavery.     They 
simply  instruct  him  to  vote  for  the  extension  of  the  Missouri  Compromise 
line  to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  if  thereby  this  difficult  controversy  can  be  settled ; 
or,  if  that  cannot  be  done,  then  to  vote  against  any  other  interference  with 
the  subject.     He  claims  full  constitutional  power  to  legislate  as  Congress 
may  please  over  the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  Territories;    and  surely  to 
obey  the  instructions,  and  vote  against  all  interference,  unless  the  Missouri 
Compromise  can  be  obtained,  cannot  involve  a  violation  of  the  Constitution, 
according  to  his  own  construction  of  that  instrument.    The  Senator  is  not 


54  THE  REPEAL  OF 

Benton's  charge  that  the  Resolutions  were  forced 
through  the  Legislature  by  fraud  and  deception  is 
next  taken  up,59  and  then  Mr.  Green  proceeds  to 
impeach  Senator  Benton's  "soundness"  upon  the  slav 
ery  issue,  and  especially  with  reference  to  the  Wil- 
mot  Proviso.  This  is  the  most  significant  part  of 

called  upon  to  mould  his  opinions  in  conformity  to  the  language  of  the 
instructions;  but  he  is  required  to  do  the  acts  commanded.  The  acts  re 
quired  by  our  resolutions  are  all  of  a  negative  character  except  the  exten 
sion  of  the  Compromise  line,  and  to  that  Colonel  Benton  pretends  to  take 
no  exception.  Voting  in  the  negative  —  voting  against  the  Wilmot  Proviso, 
and  voting  against  all  bills  interfering  with  slavery,  cannot  violate  the 
Constitution;  and  that  is  precisely  what  the  Senator  is  commanded  to  do. 
No  reason,  therefore,  can  be  found  to  exonerate  him  from  strict  obedience 
of  the  legislative  instructions." 

59  "But  as  an  excuse  for  disregarding  the  instructions,  it  is  said  they 
passed  by  fraud,  after  being  concocted  by  a  band  of  conspirators,  whose 
motives  were  base,  selfish,  and  personal. 

"This  has  been  repeated  so  often,  and  with  so  much  boldness  and 
effrontery,  that  many  good  men  have  been  led  to  believe  in  it,  although, 
for  myself,  I  have  not  seen  or  heard  the  first  particle  of  evidence  tending 
in  any  degree  to  sustain  the  charge.  To  me,  it  looks  like  adding  insult 
to  injury.  Not  content  with  trampling  on  the  authority  of  the  State,  the 
next  step  is  to  tarnish  her  reputation.  The  charge,  however,  is  but  a 
pretext  —  an  unsupported,  flimsy  pretext,  designed  to  deceive  the  people, 
and  thereby  mitigate,  if  not  conceal,  the  offence  of  disobedience.  They 
were  passed  on  the  seventh  of  March,  last,  and  intended  to  control  the 
Senators  at  the  subsequent  sessions  of  Congress;  just  like  the  instructions 
for  the  railroad,  and  many  others  which  have  passed  since  the  organization 
of  our  Government.  And  whether  they  were  conceived  by  one  man  or 
another;  whether  they  were  written  by  one  member,  or  a  dozen  others 
in  conjunction  with  him,  are  questions  wholly  irrelevant  and  immaterial. 
When  they  were  written  and  laid  before  the  two  Houses  of  the  General 
Assembly,  they  were  seen,  examined,  and  approved,  by  a  large  majority  of 
each  House,  and  passed  in  strict  conformity  to  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the 
Constitution.  Then  they  became  the  act  of  the  Legislature,  and  so  they 
will  ever  remain,  though  subject  to  repeal  by  a  subsequent  act  equally 
solemn.  And  at  this  moment  of  time,  notwithstanding  all  that  has  been 
said  against  them,  a  majority  of  the  members  yet  approve  them,  and,  if 
now  in  session,  would  reenact  them  to-day;  and  this  fact  disproves  the 
charge  that  they  were  passed  by  fraud  and  deception  upon  the  mem 
bers.  . 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  55 

the  letter.  "Our  Resolutions  of  instruction,"  wrote 
Green,  "seem  to  have  been  drawn  with  the  special 
intention  to  condemn  the  Wilmot  Proviso,™  and  all 
measures  of  a  kindred  nature."  Senator  Benton's 
opposition  to  these  Resolutions  has  induced  the  writ 
er  to  believe  that  Benton  is  "really  in  favor  of  that 
fanatical  and  treacherous  measure."  "His  recent 
speeches  and  conduct  afford  strong  corroborative  evi 
dence  of  the  same  fact."  61  Continuing  in  this  line  of 
attack,  Green  goes  on  to  say: 

"On  questions  so  vital,  so  momentous  as  this,  it  is  certainly 
important  that  the  people  should  know  precisely,  without  doubt 
or  ambiguity,  the  opinions  of  their  public  servants.  How  else 
can  they  expect  to  be  faithfully  and  truly  represented?  Colonel 
Benton  has  been  asked  frequently  by  his  constituents  for  his  opin 
ions  on  the  subject,  and  he  has  never  answered  any  one  so  as  to 
make  himself  understood;  nor  would  he  give  them  the  least  satis 
faction.  He  replied,  '/  make  no  pledges  —  /  give  no  bonds','  and 
in  no  instance  would  he  answer  wrhether  he  was  for  or  against  Free. 
Soilism.  Now,  I  believe  from  the  facts  above  given,  together 
with  various  others,  that  he  is  as  much  a  Free  Soiler  as  David 
Wilmot;  but  yet  there  are  many  good  and  worthy  citizens  of 
our  State  who  think  he  is  against  Free  Soilism,  and  would  aban 
don  him  in  an  instant  if  they  believed  he  would  favor  that  odious 
and  dangerous  scheme.  To  my  certain  knowledge  some  of  his 
friends  consider  him  committed  for  the  Proviso,  and  others  con 
sider  him  against  it.  One  or  the  other  of  these  must  be  deceived 
—  one  or  the  other  must  be  disappointed.  In  such  case,  neither 


60  The  italics  are  mine. 

61  Numerous  passages  from  Benton's  speeches  are  then  cited  in  support 
of  this  statement,  after  which  Mr.  Green  launched  into  a  long  argument 
against  the  Proviso. 

Beginning  with  the  campaign  of  1849,  it  will  be  observed  that  the 
assaults  upon  Benton  are  concentrated  upon  his  position  toward  the  Proviso, 
as  in  1844  they  had  been  directed  against  his  position  upon  the  Texas 
question. 


56  THE  REPEAL  OF 

one  should  repose  any  confidence  in  the  man,  who  knowingly  and 
wilfully  practices  such  duplicity  and  double-dealing  as  must  even 
tuate  in  the  disappointment  of  one  or  both;  and  no  man  can  tell 
but  that  he  himself  may  be  the  sufferer "  62 

The  letter  closed  with  a  brief  allusion  to  public 
sentiment  in  Missouri  toward  the  Wilmot  Proviso, 
and  to  the  character  of  the  canvass  conducted  by 
Colonel  Benton  during  the  preceding  summer  and 
autumn: 

"The  sentiments  here  advanced  are  such  as  I  have  long 
entertained,  and  have  repeatedly  declared  to  my  constituents  dur 
ing  the  last  summer  and  fall,  in  compliance  with  the  requests 
of  those  to  whom  I  am  responsible  for  my  political  action. 
Throughout  the  district  I  have  found  the  citizens  nearly  unani 
mous  in  favor  of  the  same  opinions  —  all,  or  nearly  all,  being 
opposed  to  the  proviso,  and  in  favor  of  non-interference,  leaving 
the  question  of  slavery  unaffected  by  Congressional  action,  which 
is  the  only  national  doctrine  upon  which  all  sections  of  the  Union 
may  unite,  and  settle,  to  the  satisfaction  of  all  concerned,  this 
unfortunate  controversy.  I  am  awrare  that  some  of  my  friends 
thought  my  language  last  fall  savored  too  much  of  hostility  to 
Colonel  Benton.  It  may  have  seemed  so  to  one  not  acquainted 
with  the  circumstances  demanding  it;  but  a  full  knowledge  of 
these  will  at  least  extenuate,  if  not  completely  justify  me  for  every 
word  I  uttered.  Not  a  single  disrespectful  term  was  applied  by 
me  to  Colonel  Benton,  until  his  hostility  had  provoked  it  in  self- 
defense.  But  when  he  threatened  to  'crush'  me,  and  'grind  me  to 


62  The  following  is  taken  from  an  anonymous  pamphlet  entitled,  A 
Statement  of  Facts  and  a  Few  Suggestions  in  Review  of  Political  Action 
in  Missouri,  published  in  1856,  and  found  in  bound  volume  of  pamphlets 
belonging  to  the  Missouri  Historical  Society:  "Instead  of  yielding  obedi 
ence  to  those  instructions,  Colonel  Benton  denounced  them  in  the  most  un 
sparing  terms,  and  commenced,  in  the  year  1849,  the  organization  of  a 
separate  faction  in  Missouri,  taking  as  its  shibboleth,  that  Congress  had  a 
right  to  pass  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  and  exclude  slavery  from  the  Territories. 
He  made  many  speeches  in  different  parts  of  the  State,  and  published  many 
letters,  urging  all  who  agreed  with  him  to  aid,  in  his  own  language,  in 


THE   MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  57 

dust'  and  otherwise  outraged  my  feelings  without  just  cause,  in 
the  excitement  naturally  produced  I  departed  from  my  usual 
conduct,  and  in  acrimonious  retort  indulged  in  language  which 
may  have  been  too  harsh  and  improper.  In  no  instance,  however, 
did  I  go  further  than  the  example  he  had  given  me " 

That  the  campaign  of  1849  in  Missouri  was  not 
only  one  of  extraordinary  interest  and  excitement 
but  also  exceedingly  acrimonious  appears  more  clear 
ly  from  a  letter  written  by  Adam  Klippel,63  a  strong 
Benton  sympathizer,  to  Hon.  Salmon  P.  Chase  while 
the  canvass  was  at  its  height.  The  letter  was  dated 
St.  Joseph,  Missouri,  September  14,  1849,  and  in 
it  occurs  the  following  brief  but  vivid  and  circum 
stantial  account  of  the  agitation  and  acrimony  at 
tending  this  remarkable  campaign: 

"Dear  Sir:  You  are  no  doubt  aware  of  the  excitement  and 
agitation  in  Missouri  on  the  slavery  question,  and  the  extraor 
dinary  exertions  now  going  on  to  defeat  Col.  Benton's  reelection 


'building  a  high  wall  and  digging  a  deep  ditch,  socially  and  politically,' 
between  them  and  the  Democracy  of  the  State.  That  separate  organization 
under  his  championship,  had  for  its  most  efficient  leaders  those  of  his  con 
fidential  friends  who,  in  1848,  had  inaugurated  in  Missouri  a  Van  Buren 
and  Adams  movement  against  Cass  and  Butler.  That  movement  proved  an 
utter  failure.  Colonel  Benton  was  not  directly  identified  with  it.  Still,  as 
his  course  "from  1844,  and  his  failure  to  denounce  or  attempt  to  repress 
that  scheme,  left  it  uncertain  to  what  extent  his  confidential  friends,  who 
were  engaged  in  it,  had  acted  under  his  sanction,  the  doubts  and  distrusts 
as  to  his  fidelity,  which  had  largely  prevailed  before,  became  then  so 
greatly  increased,  that  many  who  had,  up  to  that  period,  clung  with  un 
yielding  confidence  to  him,  began  to  entertain  serious  misgivings  as  to  his 

political   faith "     This  pamphlet   is   hereafter   cited    as   Rev.   Pol. 

Action. 

63  At  the  time  of  writing  this  letter,  Klippel  was  a  printer.  Later 
he  became  a  clergyman  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  an  editor. 
In  1860  he  took  the  stump  with  Carl  Schurz  in  Missouri  in  behalf  of 
Lincoln.  —  "Diary  and  Correspondence  of  S.  P.  Chase,"  in  Am.  Hist.  Assn., 
Report,  1902,  ii,  470,  citing  U.  S.  Biographical  Dictionary  (Missouri  vol 
ume).  For  the  letter  quoted  in  the  text,  see  ibid.,  470  ff. 


58  THE  REPEAL  OF 

to  the  Senate Believe  me,  sir,  the  excitement  prevalent 

in  this  State  at  this  moment,  is  fully  equal  to  a  Presidential  cam 
paign,  such  as  we  have  seen  in  Ohio  last  summer  and  fall.  Every 
where  Benton's  appeal,  his  course,  slavery  in  the  territories, 
abolitionism,  &c.,  &c.,  are  discussed  and  talked  over  most  lively. 
And  Mr.  Benton  is  travelling  over  the  State  making  speeches  to 
the  people,  and  at  every  place  he  goes  immense  numbers  are 
present  to  hear.  Mr.  Beriton  spoke  in  this  town  on  the  9th  of 
August,  to  a  very  large  concourse  of  people  —  about  1500  per 
sons I  was  afraid  Mr.  Benton  would  commit  a  blunder, 

as  his  mind  was  very  much  excited.  A  little  previous  to  making 
his  speech,  he  was  arrested  for  slander.  Judge  James  H.  Birch  — 
who  ....  is  following  Benton  wherever  he  goes,  making  opposi 
tion  speeches  —  was  the  man  that  sued  Benton,  for  accusing  the 
Judge  of  whipping  his  wife.  64 

"Judge  Birch  spoke  here  last  Saturday  (Sept.  8)  together 
with  our  own  Representative  in  Congress  —  Willard  P.  Hall, 
the  latter  taking  only  a  milder  ground  of  opposition  to  Mr.  Ben- 
ton.  Every  disguise,  as  to  the  intention  of  these  men  towards 
Benton,  is  done  away.  They  openly  declare  that  they  lare  deter 
mined  to  put  down  BentonV  All  the  judges,  more  or  less,  in 
Missouri  are  out  against  Benton:  and  Mr.  Benton  in  return 
comes  down  upon  them  in  no  unqualified  terms  —  calling  them 
nullifiers,  disunionists,  &c.  I  am  sorry  Mr.  Benton  indulges  so 
much  in  profanity.  It  looks  certainly  very  bad,  especially  so  in  a 
Statesman.  He  curses  the  judges  personally,  and  everybody  else 
that  disagrees  with  him.  Yet  in  this  respect  his  opponents  — 
Atchison  and  all  his  followers,  the  judges  —  are  not  a  whit  be 
hind.  Nine  out  of  twenty-two  democratic  papers  in  the  State, 
it  appears,  are  out  against  Benton,  and  are  unbounded  in  villify- 
ing  him,  and  such  epithets  as  'traitor,'  'Apostate,'  'Scoundrel/ 
'Barnburner,'  'Abolitionist,'  'Free  Soiler,'  are  continually  heaped 
upon  him  unsparingly.  At  the  head  of  these  stands  the  Jefferson 

City  'Metropolitan'  —  a  miserable  sheet I  am  afraid 

Benton  will  be  defeated.  The  people  of  Missouri,  however,  so  far 
as  I  have  been  able  to  see  will  sustain  Col.  Benton.  But  notwith- 


64  See  note  on  a  preceding  page,  quoting  Paxton's  Annals,  117. 


THE   MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  59 

standing  this,  I  am  afraid  —  very  much  afraid  —  our  General  As 
sembly  will  drop  Benton,  65  and  send  in  his  place  another  such  a 
dough-head  and  Slavery-Propagandist  as  General  Atchison,  who 
is  also  now  canvassing  the  State  against  Benton "  66 

The  effect  of  Benton's  appeal  and  the  canvass 
which  ensued,  was,  in  the  words  of  another  contem 
porary,  to  "stir  popular  feeling  from  its  profoundest 
depth."  67  Benton's  appeal  assumed  the  character  of 
a  test.  Upon  it  and  upon  the  Jackson  Resolutions, 
including  the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  Territories,  it 
"became  obligatory  for  every  one  to  give  an  opinion 
who  was  a  solicitor  for  public  favor."  68  Political 
friends  "completely  separated"  upon  the  Resolutions, 
and  were  "widely  diversified  in  sentiment  about  their 
construction." 69  Democratic  candidates  for  Con 
gress  found  it  necessary  to  write  circular  letters  to 

65  Calhoun  wrote  to  Thomas  G.  Clemson,  Aug.  24,  1849:  ".  .  .  . 
Benton  and  Clay  are  both  playing  for  the  North.  I  enclose  in  pamphlet 

form  my  notice  of  his  assault  on  me It  is,  so  far  as  I  have  heard, 

regarded  as  triumphant.  It  is  said,  that  he  will  not  be  able  to  sustain 
himself  in  Missouri.  His  colleague,  Gen.  Atchison,  says  he  has  no  chance 
to  be  reflected." —  Calhoun's  "Correspondence"  in  Am.  Hist.  Assn.,  Re 
port,  1899,  "»  771- 

In  the  same  month  Calhoun  wrote  to  A.  W.  Venable:  "I  hear  from 
Missouri,  that  Benton's  days  are  numbered.  Atcheson  and  Green  say,  that 
he  has  as  good  a  chance  to  be  made  Pope,  as  to  be  elected  Senator."  —  Ibid., 
770;  also,  ibid.,  1204.  See  also  the  Western  Eagle,  Jan.  n  and  June 
21,  1850. 

66 1  have  not  been  able  to  learn  the  itinerary  of  either  Atchison  or 
Birch.  Atchison  spoke  in  St.  Joseph  the  latter  part  of  September  and 
in  Jackson  in  the  same  month  probably.  See  the  Western  Eagle,  Aug. 
31,  1849. 

67  Col.  William  F.  Switzler  of  Columbia,  Mo. 

68  Circular  of  Mr.  James  S.  Bowlin  to  his  Constituents,  the  Voters  of 
the  First  Congressional  District  in  Missouri  (1850)  ;  a  pamphlet  belonging 
to  the  Missouri  Historical  Society. 

69  Ibid. 


60  THE  REPEAL  OF 

their  constituents  in  which  they  carefully  defined 
their  position  upon  the  burning  issues  of  the  day. 
"These  resolutions,"  wrote  one  candidate  for  Con 
gress,70  "have  been  so  much  discussed,  so  critically 
reviewed,  so  wildly  denounced,  and  so  warmly  eulo 
gized,  that  it  becomes  almost  impossible  to  divest 
the  mind  of  the  over-heightened  colorings  that  have 
been  thrown  around  them,  and  subject  them  to  a 
calm,  philosophic  review."  71 

This  political  ferment  was  not  confined  to  the 
ranks  of  the  Democratic  party:  it  affected  the  Whigs 
also.  Their  attitude  throughout  the  campaign  of 
1849-1850  is  well  described  by  Colonel  Switzler, 
himself  a  contemporary  Whig: 72 

"The  Whigs,  at  all  times  a  minority  in  the  State,  claimed 
to  occupy  a  position  of  'armed  neutrality'  touching  the  distracting 
questions  which  threatened  the  unity  and  power,  if  not  the  very 
existence  of  their  Democratic  opponents.  It  is  not  to  be  denied, 
however,  that  quite  naturally,  they  sought  to  foment  the  pre 
vailing  discord,  and  in  reference  to  the  Jackson  Resolutions  them 
selves,  sympathized  with  Colonel  Benton.  73  Their  representa- 


70  Mr.  Bowlin,  ibid.     Mr.  Bowlin  at  first  tried  to  maintain  a  neutral 
attitude,  but  was  soon  forced  to  take   sides,   and  then  came  out  against 
Benton. 

71  There    is    an    echo    of    this    storm    and    stress    period    in    the    pro 
ceedings  of   Congress  which  met  in  December,   1849,   in   connection  with 
the  presentation  of  the  Jackson  Resolutions  in  the  Senate  by  Mr.  Atchison 
on  the  third  of  January,  1850;  Cong.  Globe,  xxi,  Pt.  i,  98;  Senate  Journal, 
ist  Sess.,  3ist  Cong.,  48.     Benton's  remarks  on  this  occasion  are  reproduced 
in  another  connection  in  Thirty  Years'  View,  ii,  361-362.     The  Resolutions 
were    presented    to    the    House    by    Mr.    Green,    Dec.    31,    1849;    House 
Journal,  ist  Sess.,  3ist  Cong.,  203. 

72  History  of  Missouri,  272. 

73  This  may  be  true  in  general,  but  there  were  numerous  exceptions. 
For  example,  the  Western  Eagle  endorsed  the  substance  of  the  Resolutions, 
but  repudiated  the  idea  of  nullification  or  secession.     The  Whigs  naturally 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  6 1 

tives  in  both  branches  of  the  General  Assembly  had  opposed  them 
by  speech  and  vote  at  the  time  of  their  adoption,  and  for  similar 
reasons  to  those  afterwards  presented  by  Colonel  Benton  in  his 
warfare  upon  them."  By  the  time  it  became  necessary  to  elect 
a  successor  to  Benton  in  1850,  "the  Whigs  themselves  were  to 
some  extent  divided  into  Benton  and  anti-Benton  Whigs,  desig 
nations  which  attached  to  the  one  segment  or  the  other  according 
to  the  intensity  of  its  pro-slavery  or  anti-slavery  sentiments." 

Very  little  evidence  has  been  found  which  in 
dicates  clearly  what  the  leaders  and  lieutenants  of 
the  two  great  factions  in  the  Missouri  Democracy 
did  in  the  spring  and  summer  of  1850.  Apparently 
the  State's  two  Senators,  Benton  and  Atchison,  were 
fully  occupied  with  the  absorbing  topics  then  en 
grossing  the  attention  not  only  of  Congress  but  of  the 
whole  country.  We  read  of  few  speeches  in  Mis 
souri  :  in  fact,  few  were  needed,  for  the  issues  had  all 
been  clearly  defined  during  the  exciting  contest  of 
the  year  preceding. 

In  August  were  to  be  elected  members  of  the 


availed  themselves  of  the  disaffection  in  the  Democratic  ranks  to  conduct 
a  State  and  Congressional  campaign  of  unusual  vigor  in  1850.  See  the 
Western  Eagle,  Aug.  17,  1849,  Mar-  29,  June  28,  July  19,  Aug.  2,  and  Aug. 
23,  1850.  As  early  as  the  first  of  April,  1850,  the  possibility  of  bringing 
about  the  election  of  a  Whig  to  the  Senate  was  perceived  and  urged 
in  the  Whig  press.  See  a  communication  from  "A  New  Madrid  Whig"  in 
the  Western  Eagle,  April  12,  1850. 

This  Whig  organ  was  particularly  severe  in  its  condemnation  of 
Benton  for  his  neglect  to  secure  appropriations  from  the  Federal  Govern 
ment  for  internal  improvements  within  the  State  of  Missouri.  Atchison 
is  similarly  criticised.  One  editorial  on  this  subject  was  called  forth  by 
the  statement  of  the  Washington  correspondent  of  the  St.  Louis  Intelli 
gencer  to  the  effect  that  the  act  granting  alternate  sections  of  land  to  aid 
the  Illinois  Central  Railroad,  "may  be  attributed  mainly  to  the  exertions 
of  Col.  Benton,  the  Missouri  Senator."  In  view  of  Benton's  "total  neglect" 
of  the  railroad  interests  of  his  own  State,  the  editor  regarded  Benton's  "mag 
nanimity"  in  this  direction  as  "supererogatory."  —  Issue  of  May  24,  1850. 


62  THE  REPEAL  OF 

General  Assembly  which  would  choose  a  successor 
to  Senator  Benton.  That  individual,  on  the  whole, 
appears  to  have  viewed  the  situation  with  far  too 
great  equanimity,  apparently  overestimating  his  in 
fluence  and  the  strength  of  his  following.  Often  he 
refused  in  a  decidedly  cavalier  fashion  requests  from 
his  constituents  to  appear  before  them  and  speak  up 
on  the  issues.74 

Some  attempt  seems  to  have  been  made  to  heal 
the  schism  caused  by  the  Jackson  Resolutions  and 
Benton's  appeal.  Overtures  were  made  by  the 
Antis  to  the  Bentonites  looking  toward  a  united 
Democratic  ticket  in  the  August  campaign.  This 
prospect  of  reconciliation  was^  swept  away  by  a 
spirited  letter  from  Senator  Benton,  dated  Washing 
ton  City,  March  8,  1850: 7S 

"I  have  had  a  great  many  letters  from  friends  in  different 
parts  of  the  State,  in  relation  to  a  union  with  the  Calhounites 
in  the  ensuing  elections ;  such  letters  are  very  mortifying  to  me  — 
too  much  so  to  be  answered.  I  was  sounded  upon  the  point  last 
summer  when  the  articles  were  going  through  the  Calhoun  papers, 
for  a  general  convention  of  the  party,  as  it  was  called,  to  meet 
and  settle  all  differences.  I  answered  instantly  and  truly,  that 
I  would  sooner  sit  in  council  with  the  six  thousand  dead,  who 
have  died  of  cholera  in  St.  Louis,  than  to  go  into  convention  with 
such  a  gang  of  scamps;  and  that  is  my  sentiment  to-day.  There 
is  but  one  principle  on  which  the  Democrats  and  the  Calhounites 
can  meet  in  any  election,  and  that  is  one  which  Calhoun  said  held 
the  party  together,  'the  cohesive  bond  of  public  plunder.'  That 
may  be  true  of  him  and  his,  but  it  is  not  true  of  me  and  mine: 

174  Rogers's  Benton,  313.  Benton  spoke  in  St.  Louis,  Nov.  9,  1850. 
This  is  the  only  speech  of  his  in  the  campaign  of  1850  of  which  I  have 
found  a  summary. 

75  The  name  of  the  person  to  whom  this  letter  was  addressed  is  not 
given  in  the  Western  Eagle,  April  15,  1850,  where  the  letter  is  printed. 


THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  63 

and  I  will  prove  it  during  these  elections,  by  standing  clear  of 
all  connections  with  them.  I  will  not  mix  with  them  nor  give, 
nor  take  help.  Let  them  have  their  own  ticket  and  we  ours. 
Let  us  have  a  clean  Democratic  ticket  —  no  taint  of  Calhounism, 
i.e.  secession,  disunion,  nullification,  in  it.  Let  them  have  their 
own  ticket,  and  elect  it  if  they  can;  or  defeat  ours  if  they  can. 
The  point  is  to  defeat  them.  The  public  good  requires  it;  the 
harmony  and  the  preservation  of  the  Union  require  it.  The  Mis 
souri  elections  this  year  are  a  turning  point  in  the  drama  of 
disunion.  The  disunionists  count  upon  Missouri.  They  believe 
they  have  the  State,  and  that  belief  emboldens  them  in  the  highest 
degree;  success  in  one  election  will  confirm  that  belief.  The 
election  of  Calhoun  men  will  confirm  it;  therefore  they  must  be 
defeated  and  if  confined  to  their  own  ticket  they  will  be  defeated. 
City  and  County,  State  and  Federal,  Congressional  and  all,  they 
should  be  put  to  their  own  ticket,  76  and  be  made  to  congregate 
by  themselves ;  we  shall  be  stronger  when  they  are  gone ;  and  what 
is  more,  we  shall  be  clean  —  no  timid  or  selfish  calculations  about 
losing  elections;  we  may  lose  some  few,  but  still  the  great  point 
will  be  gained,  Calhounites  will  be  put  down,  and  even  the  election 
of  Whigs  will  be  a  triumph  over  them  —  a  victory  in  behalf  of 
the  Union  —  and  that  is  the  overruling  consideration  at  present. 
Fear  of  seeing  Whigs  elected  can  have  no  effect  upon  me  under 
present  circumstances  —  not  even  a  fear  of  seeing  a  Whig  elected 
in  my  own  place.  I  am  for  the  country  and  for  the  Union,  and 
the  country  and  the  Union  require  Calhounism  to  be  extinguished 
in  Missouri,  and  I  am  for  the  extermination  as  courageously  as 
the  Calhounites  are  for  dissolution  of  the  Union,  'at  all  hazards 
and  without  regard  to  consequences.' 

"People  ask  me  here  why  I  do  not  speak?  I  tell  them,  when 
I  was  at  the  Bar,  I  never  interrupted  my  adversary's  counsel  while 
he  was  proving  up  my  case  for  me. 

"This  letter  is  not  for  publication,  but  it  is  not  for  conceal 
ment.  Friends  may  see  it." 

When  the   returns  from  the  August  elections 


76  This  was  substantially  the  course  pursued  in  the  campaign  of  1850. 


64  THE  REPEAL  OF 

were  all  in,  it  was  evident  that  the  newly  elected 
Legislature  would  be  divided  into  three  factions, 
Bentonites,  anti-Bentonites  and  Whigs,  in  such  a 
way  that  no  one  faction  could  command  the  majority 
necessary  to  effect  the  election  of  a  Senator.77 

The  General  Assembly  convened  December 
30.  The  caucus  of  Bentonites  sent  a  message  to 
the  anti-Benton  caucus  inquiring  if  they  would  join 
with  the  Bentonites  for  the  purpose  of  effecting  an 
organization  of  the  Legislature.  To  this  message  the 
Antis  replied  in  a  resolution  which  stated  that  "when- 


77  In  commenting  upon  the  result  of  the  August  elections,  the  Western 
Eagle  (Aug.  9,  1850)  said  editorially: — ".  .  .  .  Freesoilism  is  prostrate 
in  Missouri,  and  for  one,  we  do  most  heartily  rejoice.  The  reign  of  Benton 
is  at  an  end ;  and  it  is  a  consummation  for  which  we  have  arduously  la 
bored  and  most  devoutly  wished.  The  people  on  Monday  last  gave  him  his 
quietus,  and  his  odious  principles  a  'Sadducee  burial.'  .  .  .  Rejoice,  inde- 
dependent  Democrats  for  you  have  overcome  a  political  tyrant!  Let  the 
whole  people  of  Missouri  rejoice,  for  they  have  rid  themselves  of  one  who 
has  always  been  a  curse  to  their  prosperity." 

The  Washington  correspondent  of  the  Baltimore  Clipper,  writing 
Aug.  6,  1850,  made  the  suggestion  that  in  view  of  his  recent  defeat  in  the 
Missouri  elections,  Benton  "will  go  to  California  and  seek  to  be  returned 
as  a  Senator  from  that  State."  —  Quoted  in  the  Western  Eagle,  Aug. 
16,  1850. 

The  interpretation  which  Benton  placed  upon  the  result  of  the  elections 
is  represented  by  the  Western  Eagle  (Nov.  15,  1850)  in  a  review  of  Ben- 
ton's  speech  at  St.  Louis,  Nov.  9,  1850  (I  have  been  unable  to  find  the 
speech  itself):  ".  .  .  .  The  Colonel  contends  that  his  appeal  from  the 
resolutions  of  instruction  ....  has  been  sustained  by  the  people  and  that 
he  has  no  farther  interest  in  the  contest,  than  to  see  execution  done  on  the 
condemned  resolutions.  We  will  use  his  own  words  —  'all  my  objects 
have  been  accomplished.  The  people  of  Missouri  were  waked  up  to  a 
sense  of  their  danger!  The  whole  Union  was  waked  up  to  the  danger  of 
disunion.  My  appeal  —  my  six  months  speaking  to  the  people  of  Missouri 
waked  up  the  State  and  all  the  States !  What  would  have  been  the  condi 
tion  of  the  country,  if  I  had  not  made  the  stand  I  did?'  Well,  who  did 
kill  cock  robin?  I,  says  Benton,  with  my  six  months  speeches!"  [delivered 
in  1849]. 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  65 

ever  the  Benton  Democracy  shall  abandon  Colonel 
Benton  as  their  candidate  for  United  States  Senator 
and  their  support  of  his  'Appeal'  from  the  instruc 
tions  of  the  last  General  Assembly  of  Missouri,  and 
the  principles  maintained  by  him  relative  to  the 
subject  of  slavery,  then  this  meeting  will  with  great 
pleasure  join  all  Democrats  in  carrying  out  the  great 
fundamental  principles  of  the  Democratic  party,  as 
set  forth  in  the  Baltimore  platform  of  1844  and  1848, 
provided  they  recognize  the  rights  of  instruction  by 
the  Legislature  to  their  Senators  in  Congress." 78 
With  such  terms,  amounting  to  a  complete  surrender 
of  their  position,  the  Benton  men  could  not  of  course 
comply.79 

The  joint  sessions  of  the  two  Houses  for  the  pur 
pose  of  electing  a  Senator  began  on  the  tenth  of  Jan 
uary,  1851,  and  continued  to  be  held  from  day  to  day 
until  the  twenty-second.  On  the  eleventh,  Mr.  Hill, 
a  member  of  the  House,  offered  in  joint  session  the 
following  resolution: 

"Resolved,  That  the  one-half  of  the  State  of  Missouri  is 
now  misrepresented  in  the  person  of  Thomas  H.  Benton  in  the 
United  States  Senate,  and  that  the  two  Houses,  now  in  joint 
session  will  not  adjourn  except  as  may  suit  their  convenience  until 
a  United  States  Senator  who  will  reflect  the  true  interests  of  the 
State  shall  have  been  elected,  or  until  the  5th  day  of  March, 
next."  80 


78  The   Western  Eagle,  Jan.  3,   1851.     Telegraphic  accounts  of  legis 
lative  proceedings   appeared  regularly  in  this  paper  beginning  with  this 
issue. 

79  See  also  in  this  connection  Reports  of  House  and  Senate  Committees 
on  Federal  Relations,  in  Missouri  House  Journal,  1850-51,  Appendix,  239, 
and  Missouri  Senate  Journal,  1850-51,  Appendix,  249. 

80  Missouri  Senate  Journal,  1850-51,  88.     See  also  the   report  of  the 


66  THE  REPEAL  OF 

The  resolution  was  laid  upon  the  table,  but  it  is 
significant  of  the  animus  of  the  anti-Benton  mem 
bers,  and  the  resolute  determination  of  some  to  com 
pass  the  defeat  of  Benton  at  any  price. 

"The  war  of  the  factions  raged  furiously," 
writes  a  contemporary  Whig,  "each  'wing'  of  the 
Democratic  party  preferring  the  success  of  the 
Whigs  to  the  success  of  the  opposing  division  of  their 
own  party.  Finally  ....  a  portion  of  the  line  of 
each  of  the  opposing  forces  gave  way,  and  victory 
perched  upon  the  banner  of  the  Whigs."  81  On  the 
fortieth  ballot,  Henry  S.  Geyer,  a  lawyer  of  eminent 
ability  residing  in  St.  Louis,  was  elected  for  the  term 
of  six  years  beginning  March  4,  1851.  On  that 
date  Thomas  H.  Benton,  after  a  period  of  thirty 
years'  service,  ceased  to  be  a  Senator  of  the  United 
States. 

According  to  the  calculation  of  his  enemies, 
Benton  should  have  retired  from  political  life  after 
his  defeat;82  but  they  had  reckoned  without  their 

House  Committee  on  Federal  Relations,  in  Missouri  House  Journal,  1850- 
57,  Appendix,  239  ff. 

81  Switzler's  Missouri,  273.     The  break  in  the  Democratic  ranks  began 
about  the  sixteenth  of  January,   and   seems  to  have  come   from  the   anti- 
Benton  side.     On  that  day  the  following  despatch  was  sent  to  the  Western 
Eagle:     "To-day  has  been  the  most  exciting  day  of  the  session.     Several 
of   the    anti-Benton   members    avowed   their    intention    to   vote    for   H.    S. 
Geyer.     Mr.    Stewart  in   particular   made   a   speech   expressing   his   deter 
mination  to  do  so.     In  his  remarks  he  stated  that  his  object  was  to  defeat 
Colonel  Benton,  and  he  infinitely  preferred   a  Whig  of  sound  sentiments, 
like  H.  S.  Geyer,  to  Benton.     He  said  that  if  he  were  compelled  to  vote 
for  either  Seward  or  Benton,  he  would  cast  his  vote  for  the  former,  for 
he  was   an  avowed  Abolitionist,  while  the  latter  was    an  Abolitionist  in 
disguise  —  not  from  principle  but  from  policy."  —  Issue  of  Jan.  17,  1851. 

82  Statement    of   Judge    William    C.    Price,    reported    to    me    by    Mr. 
Connelley. 


THE   MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  67 

host.  A  Benton  temporarily  cast  down  and  a  Ben- 
ton  vanquished  and  destroyed  were  two  entirely  dif 
ferent  things,  as  they  were  soon  to  discover.  Benton 
immediately  set  about  reorganizing  his  "bolt"  from 
the  regular  Democratic  organization  in  Missouri.83 
When  the  parties  in  that  State  were  about  to 
prepare  for  the  Congressional,  State  and  Presidential 
elections  in  1852,  the  Antis  made  another  effort  to 
heal  the  schism  which  had  resulted  in  the  election  of 
a  Whig  Senator,  and  sought  to  bring  together  into 
one  State  convention  all  who  still  claimed  to  be  Dem 
ocrats.  But  with  this  Benton  would  have  nothing 
to  do.  Letters  were  published  by  him  in  denuncia 
tion  of  the  movement  toward  factional  reconcilia 
tion,  and  his  followers  were  forbidden  to  participate 
in  the  State  Democratic  convention  which  met  at 
Jefferson  City  early  in  the  summer  of  1852.  That 
convention,  composed  mainly  of  radicals,  manifested 
a  willingness  to  forget  the  past,  including  Benton's 
"hostility  to  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850," 
his  disobedience  of  the  legislative  instructions,  and 
his  open  "bolt"  from  the  Democratic  party,  "on  con 
dition  that  he  and  his  supporters  would  'acquiesce'  in 
the  adjustment  measures  of  1850  and  the  principles 

83  The  Washington  correspondent  of  the  Louisville  (Ky.)  Courier 
wrote  in  March,  1851:  ".  .  .  .  Mr.  [F.  P.]  Blair  [Jr.]  visited  him 
[Benton]  a  day  or  two  since  to  prevail  upon  him  to  announce  himself  as 
a  candidate  for  the  Presidency,  regardless  of  all  party  dictation  or  nom 
ination;  assuring  him  that  the  country  would  sustain  him  if  he  would  do 
so.  His  supplications  and  entreaties,  however,  were  of  no  avail,  as  Benton 
vowed  that  he  would  give  neither  sleep  to  his  eyes  nor  rest  to  his  limbs, 
until  he  had  revolutionized  Missouri,  and  his  supremacy  in  that  State  was 

conceded  by  his  reelection  to  the  Senate  in  the  place  of  Atchison " 

Quoted  in  the  Western  Eagle,  March  21,  1851. 


68  THE  REPEAL  OF 

they  established,  and  in  good  faith  adhere  to  the 
party  organization  and  nominees."  84  In  less  than 
two  months  after  the  Jefferson  City  convention,  "Col 
onel  Benton  took  the  stump  again  in  Missouri,  de 
nounced  the  Democratic  State  Convention  and  its 
platform,  derided  all  who  adhered  to  it,  and  pro 
claimed  that  he  would  never  again  support  the  nom 
inees  even  of  a  Democratic  National  Convention."  8S 

Acting  in  accordance  with  Colonel  Benton's  ad 
monitions,  "his  friends  drew  off  from  the  Democratic 
party  in  most  portions  of  the  State  where  they  had 
any  strength.  In  the  first  Congressional  District, 
the  regular  convention  nominated  as  the  Democratic 
candidate  for  Congress,  Col.  Louis  V.  Bogy;  the 
Benton  men  bolted,  and  Colonel  Benton  ran  as  an  in 
dependent  candidate.  His  example  and  his  advice 
were  followed  generally  by  his  friends:  they  bolted 
from  the  regular  Democratic  organization,  formed  a 
new  organization  and  continued  to  act  under  it,"  un 
til  after  the  defeat  of  Benton  for  reelection  to  the 
Senate  in  1854-55. 

Colonel  Benton's  election  to  the  House  of  Rep 
resentatives  was  merely  an  episode  in  his  struggle 


Pol.  Action,  8.  "As  an  illustration  of  his  [Benton's] 
course,"  the  Review  continues,  "it  may  be  here  stated,  that  on  the  isth  of 
May,  1852,  he  delivered  a  speech  at  the  town  of  Jackson,  Missouri,  unsur 
passed  in  vituperation,  in  which,  after  reviling  and  denouncing  the  Dem 
ocratic  State  Convention  for  nearly  half  an  hour,  he  proceeded  thus:  'I 
now  drop  the  Jefferson  City  convention  with  the  declaration  that  it  was 
all  a  fraud  and  cheat  from  the  beginning!  that  it  had  effected  no  union 
between  the  two  wings  of  the  Democracy!  that  the  Antis  (Democrats) 
remain  (their  leaders,  I  mean)  under  a  distinct  organization.'  " 
85  Ibid. 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  69 

for  reelection  to  the  Senate.86  The  same  fury  and 
vehemence  and  vituperation  characterized  his  cam 
paign  in  1852  that  had  distinguished  his  canvass 
three  years  earlier.  Throughout  the  whole  of  the 
tremendous  contest  for  election  to  the  House,  from 
which  he  emerged  triumphant,  "he  spared  no 
public  or  personal  denunciation.  He  exhausted 
every  expletive  of  abuse.  He  ransacked  the  entire 
range  of  the  English  language  for  terms  of  scorn  and 
derision.  He  spared  no  character.  He  wavered  in 
no  contest.  He  struck  at  everything  and  everybody, 
fiercely,  powerfully,  and  with  a  rude  grandeur  of 
gigantic  rage  and  hate.  He  was  an  angry  Vulcan 
forging  and  launching  thunderbolts  of  hate."  87 

86  Though  the  campaign  of  1852  involved  issues  of  more  significance 
than   the   personal   defeat  or   triumph  of  one   leader   and   his   faction,   the 
Jackson  Resolutions   and   the  Wilmot  Proviso   and  Benton's  opposition  to 
the  Compromise  measures  of  1850  still  lay  at  the  bottom  of  the  factional 
war.     In  a  letter  to  the  editor  of  the  Booneville   (Mo.)   Observer,  in  June, 
1852,  Benton  said,   referring  to  the  Jackson  Resolutions:     "I   gave  notice 
to  the  people,  in  my  appeal  in  1849  of  my  intention  to  get  their  decision 
upon  the  question  of  expunging  those  resolutions  from  the  journals.     I  now 
repeat   the   notice,    with   the   declaration   of   my   intention   to   continue   the 
efforts   (and  if  I  remain  out  of  Congress,  in  a  more  direct  manner)   until 
it   succeeds,  or  my  natural   life  ceases."     Benton,   it  may  be   added   here, 
never  succeeded  in  this  second  "expunging"  struggle.     The  letter  referred 
to  is  quoted  in  Rev.  Pol.  Action,  106. 

87  Comment  of  the  New   Orleans   Crescent  upon  Benton's   election  to 
the   House,   quoted   in   Jefferson   Inquirer,  Aug.   28,   1852.     Preceding   the 
passage    quoted    above,    occurs    the    following    comment:     "In    the    history 
of  American  politics  we   have  just  realized   an  extraordinary  occurrence. 
A  man  who  but  yesterday  was  driven  from  the  council  hall  of  the  nation,  in 
which  it  was  his  boast  that  he  stood  for  thirty  years   a  Senator,  returns 
again  into  his  legislative  labors,   and  returns  under  circumstances   of  the 
most  extraordinary  and  triumphant  character.     He  is  elected  by   a  Dem 
ocratic  slave-holding  constituency  and  elected  by  a  remarkably  large  popular 
vote  when  his  theoretical  opinions   and  senatorial  votes  have  notoriously 
made  him  obnoxious  to  the  entire  slave-holding  section  of  the  Union.     He 


70  THE  REPEAL  OF 

Long  after  Colonel  Benton's  election  to  the 
House,  the  war  of  the  factions  continued.  In  Au 
gust,  1852,  a  special  session  of  the  Legislature  was 
called  to  consider  the  subject  of  Internal  Improve 
ments,  a  subject  in  which  there  was  deep  and  wide 
spread  interest  in  Missouri  during  this  period. 
Great,  however,  "as  was  the  particular  interest  every 
where  felt  in  the  early  completion"  of  the  railroads 
within  the  State,  "nothing  could  obscure  the  camp- 
fires  of  the  political  factions,  or  smooth  the  ragged 
edge  of  their  conflicts.  Fresh  from  the  turbulence 
of  the  State  canvass,  which  had  closed  on  the  first 
Monday  of  the  month,  the  Senators  and  Representa 
tives  of  the  people,  supplemented  by  a  large  and 
active  lobby,  assembled  at  the  Capitol,  and  at  the 
very  threshold  confronted  the  questions  of  Benton 
and  anti-Benton,  Free-soil  and  Slave-soil,  Whig  and 
Democrat,  Hard  and  Soft.  Therefore,  a  most  bitter 
and  protracted  struggle  ensued  in  the  organization 
of  the  House,  during  which  the  special  objects  for 
which  the  session  had  been  called  were  entirely  for 
gotten And  thus  the  conflict  raged,  the 

'Jackson  Resolutions'  being  the  real  element  of  dis 
cord:  the  Benton  Democrats  avowing  the  purpose 

is  elected  from  a  populous  district  against  the  opposition  of  a  well-organized 
and  enthusiastic  body  of  Whigs,  when  his  own  party  was  split  into  two 
irreconcilable  factions,  and  when  the  Whigs  knew  that  the  whole  of  a 
long  life  had  been  devoted  to  the  bitterest  and  most  vindictive,  vituperative 
warfare  upon  their  cardinal  principles  and  most  eminent  leaders.  He  is 
elected  from  a  district  in  which  his  violence  of  temper  and  haughtiness  of 
will  have  bred  countless  feuds  and  as  it  were  petrified  them  into  im 
placable  enmities Nor  did  Benton  attempt  to  conciliate.  Concilia 
tion  is  not  in  his  rough  and  stubborn  nature "  See  also  Rev.  Pol. 

Action,  1 06. 


THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  Jl 

to  expunge  them  from  the  Journal;  the  Antis,  to 
keep  them  there;  the  Whigs  securely  poised  on  the 
pedestal  of  'armed  neutrality.'  "  88 

This  special  session  of  the  General  Assembly 
did  not  adjourn  finally  until  two  days  before  the 
time  fixed  by  statute  for  the  assembling  of  the  next 
regular  session,  which  began  December  27,  1852, 
and  adjourned  February  24,  1853.  The  latter  was 
"a  stormy  session  —  storms  in  both  Houses  over  the 
Jackson  Resolutions,  and  the  questions  of  slavery, 
secession  and  disunion."89  With  its  close  we  are 
brought  to  the  beginning  of  the  memorable  campaign 
of  1853,  which  marks  the  culmination  of  Benton's 
efforts  to  secure  his  restoration  to  the  Senate  —  a 
campaign  deserving  a  detailed  treatment  which  is 
reserved  for  subsequent  chapters. 


88  Switzler's  Missouri,  276-277. 

89  Ibid. ;  Missouri  House  Journal^  519. 


CHAPTER  III 

The  Pacific  Railroad— Benton  s  "Central  National  Highway"— 
Nebraska  Territorial  Movement,  l8$2—Abelard  Guthrie— Doug 
las's  Lack  of  Interest  in  Nebraska— Atchisons  Inconsistency. 

Nearly  coincident  with  the  beginning  of  the 
schism  in  the  Missouri  Democracy  precipitated  by 
Benton's  "Appeal,"  occurred  the  discovery  of  gold  in 
California  and  the  vast  emigration  from  the  eastern 
States  across  Nebraska.  With  the  growth  of  popu 
lous  settlements  upon  the  Pacific  coast  arose  the  ne 
cessity  of  providing  for  their  protection  and  defense, 
and  for  some  means  of  cementing  these  widely  sep 
arated  portions  of  the  Union.  In  politics  as  else 
where,  necessity  is  the  mother  of  invention;  and  the 
necessity  thus  created  gave  birth  to  a  variety  of  proj 
ects  designed  to  bind  the  Pacific  settlements  to  the 
rest  of  the  Union.  Of  such  projects  none  was  more 
ambitious  or  more  pretentious  than  Thomas  H.  Ben- 
ton's  plan  for  a  "Central  National  Highway  to  the 
Pacific." 

The  importance  of  this  project  in  the  history  of 
the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  lies  in  the 
effective  use  which  Colonel  Benton  made  of  it  in  his 
struggle  for  restoration  to  the  Senate.  The  "High 
way"  seemed  to  render  necessary  the  adoption  by  the 
Federal  Government  of  a  definite  plan  for  the  gov 
ernment  of  the  territory  traversed.  Colonel  Benton 


THE   MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  73 

therefore  urged  the  early  organization  of  Nebraska 
Territory  as  an  indispensable  means  to  the  construc 
tion  and  maintenance  of  the  Great  Highway.  In 
this  he  was  actively  seconded  by  the  efforts  of  the 
Wyandott  Indians  living  in  Nebraska  through  whose 
lands  the  Highway  would  pass,  and  who  were  there 
fore  deeply  interested  in  the  scheme.  Benton  kept 
these  subjects  so  prominently  before  the  people  of 
Missouri  in  1852-53  that  upon  each  of  them  Senator 
Atchison  had  to  define  explicitly  his  position. 

In  1849  Colonel  Benton  had  introduced  into  the 
Senate  a  bill  "to  provide  for  the  location  and  con 
struction  of  a  central  national  road  from  the  Pacific 
Ocean  to  the  Mississippi  river,  with  a  branch  of  said 
road  to  the  Columbia  river."  90  On  the  sixteenth  of 
December,  1850,  a  few  days  before  the  meeting  of  the 
Legislature  in  which  he  was  defeated  for  reelection 
to  the  Senate,  he  introduced  a  second  bill,  "to  pro 
vide  for  the  location  and  construction  of  a  central 


90  February  7,  1849.  This  bill  was  accompanied  by  a  speech  in  which 
the  results  of  Fremont's  explorations  were  reviewed  at  length.  The  scheme 
for  the  central  national  highway,  presented  at  this  time,  was  not  so 
elaborately  worked  out  as  the  one  introduced  in  1850,  nor  was  it  made 
the  object  of  attack  and  ridicule  to  such  a  degree.  The  bill  of  1849  may 
be  found,  together  with  Benton's  speech,  in  Cong.  Globe,  xx,  470,  625. 
The  bill  of  1850,  with  Benton's  speech  at  that  time,  may  be  found  in  Cong. 
Globe,  xxiii,  56,  and  in  Connelley's  Prov.  Gov.,  88  if.  Neither  bill  came 
to  a  final  vote. 

The  idea  of  a  railroad  to  the  Pacific  did  not  of  course  originate  with 
Benton.  Before  the  introduction  of  his  second  bill,  there  had  appeared  in 
print:  Loughborough's  The  Pacific  Telegraph  and  Railway  (St.  Louis, 
1849),  Asa  Whitney's  Project  for  a  Railroad  to  the  Pacific  (N.  Y.,  1849), 
and  Peyton's  Suggestions  on  Railroad  Communication  with  the  Pacific  and 
the  Trade  of  the  Indian  Islands.  See  also  Professor  Turner's  essay  on 
"The  Significance  of  the  Frontier  in  American  History,"  in  Am.  Hist.  Assn., 
Report,  1893,  204  n;  and  J.  P.  Davis's  History  of  the  Union  Pacific  Rail 
way. 


74  THE  REPEAL  OF 

national  highway  from  the  Mississippi  river,  at  St. 
Louis,  to  the  Bay  of  San  Francisco,  on  the  Pacific 


ocean." 


For  the  next  two  years  there  is  no  evidence  that 
Colonel  Benton  displayed  any  active  interest  in  the 
railway  measure  by  pressing  it  upon  either  the  atten 
tion  of  Congress  or  the  country.  Consequently  when 
he  began  an  active  championship  of  that  project 
and  of  the  Nebraska  territorial  measure  late  in 
1852  and  continued  to  make  them  the  leading  issues 
of  the  campaign  of  1853,  it  afforded  his  enemies  an 
opportunity  to  allege  that  the  advocacy  of  these  proj 
ects  grew  out  of  his  political  necessities  in  1849-50, 
and  that  they  were  now  revived  merely  for  election 
eering  purposes.  During  his  thirty  years  of  service 
in  the  Senate,  it  was  pointed  out,  Colonel  Benton  had 
never  manifested  any  special  interest  in  these  sub 
jects  until  his  term  was  about  to  expire.  His  osten 
tatious  devotion  to  these  measures  in  1853  was  ac 
cordingly  ridiculed  and  denounced  by  Atchison  and 
his  supporters  as  devoid  of  all  sincerity  and  as  a 
purely  demagogical  bid  for  popularity  in  Missouri. 


91 


91  In  speeches  delivered  at  Weston  and  Platte  City  in  June,  1853, 
Senator  Atchison  made  the  following  ironical  allusion  to  Benton's  project: 

"In  1850  he  [Colonel  Benton]  introduced  his  bill  to  construct  a  railroad 
from  St.  Louis  to  San  Francisco,  said  road  to  be  a  mile  wide  for  the 
distance  of  two  thousand  miles,  almost  as  much  territory  as  is  comprised 
in  some  of  the  States  of  the  Union,  reserved  and  set  aside  for  roads,  a 
railroad  with  double  tracks,  a  turnpike  road,  a  dirt  road  and  a  line  of 
telegraph.  Magnificent  was  it  not?  ....  But  this  was  not  all.  When 
the  roads  are  completed  one  of  the  highest  and  most  solid  peaks  of  the  Rocky 
Mountains  is  to  be  cut  into  a  statue  of  Christopher  Columbus  with  an 
arm  outstretched  and  upon  it  to  be  inscribed  'The  Road  to  India;'  and 
but  for  the  modesty  of  the  Old  Statesman,  another  peak  would  be  selected 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  75 

It  was  an  important  part  of  Colonel  Benton's 
plan  of  campaign  in  1853  so  to  associate  the  organi 
zation  of  Nebraska  Territory  and  the  construction 
of  the  railroad  to  the  Pacific  from  St.  Louis  across 
the  State  of  Missouri,  that  the  people  of  that  State 
would  regard  the  territorial  government  as  indis 
pensable  to  the  success  of  the  railway,  and  in  the  suc 
cess  of  the  railway  every  Missourian  felt  a  direct 
interest.92 

Perhaps  the  first  public  utterance  in  which  the 
construction  of  the  railroad  to  the  Pacific  and  the 
organization  of  a  territorial  government  in  Nebraska 
are  coupled  is  to  be  found  in  the  report  of  a  speech 
delivered  by  Colonel  Benton  at  Jackson  in  Cape  Gir- 
ardeau  county,  Missouri,  late  in  October,  iS^a.93  In 
this  speech  Colonel  Benton  had  much  to  say  about 
the  railroad,  and  in  that  connection  occurs  this  pass 
age: 

"Connected  with  this  road,  necessary  to  its  construction  and 
preservation  and  indispensable  to  the  approximation  of  our  pop 
ulations,  is  the  establishment  of  the  new  territory  on  the  Kansas 


and  a  statue  sculptured  of  the  great  man  who  by  his  genius  and  exertions 
consummated  what  the  mind  of  Columbus  had  conceived. 

"The  bill  was  introduced  at  the  session  of  1850-51,  when  our  old  and 
distinguished  statesman's  senatorial  career  was  about  to  close.  A  road 
one  mile  wide  and  two  thousand  miles  long,  to  be  constructed  at  an  expense 
of  from  one  hundred  to  two  hundred  million  dollars,  without  examination 
or  survey.  As  to  the  survey,  however,  we  are  told  that  those  primitive 
engineers  the  Buffaloes  had  surveyed  the  route;  and  upon  this  Buffalo 
information  thus  imparted  Congres  swas  expected  to  act!"  —  Reported  in 
the  Missouri  Republican,  June  22,  1853.  See  also  the  Western  Eagle, 
Aug.  17,  1849. 

92  See  the  remarks  of  Hon.  J.  W.  Lindley  in  the  House,  Cong.  Globe, 
xxxi,  797,  quoted  later  in  this  chapter. 

93  Delivered   Oct.    30,    1852,   and   reported   in   the   Jefferson   Inquirer, 
Nov.  6,   1852. 


76  THE  REPEAL  OF 

river  extending  north  and  south  to  the  Platte  and  Arkansas,  and 
west  to  the  boundary  lines  of  New  Mexico  and  Utah.  It  is  a 
fine  country  ....  in  the  healthy  and  genial  climate  of  38°  and 
39°,  and  now  roamed  over  by  a  few  unsettled  Indians  who  would 
be  benefited  by  being  reduced  to  small  bands,  supplied  with  stock 
animals  and  taught  agriculture  and  the  rudiments  of  civilization. 
Continuity  of  settlement,  and  of  jurisdiction,  consolidation  of  our 
power  from  Missouri  to  California,  filling  up  a  blank  which  now 
exists  in  our  western  territory,  putting  law  and  civilization  into 
communication  across  the  continent  and  through  its  center,  mak 
ing  travelling  safe,  direct  and  speedy  and  cheap  between  the 
remote  parts  of  our  extended  dominions;  such  are  the  powerful 
national  reasons  for  the  immediate  and  indispensable  establishment 
of  the  Kansas  Territory." 

The  second  session  of  the  320!  Congress  had 
scarcely  adjourned  in  March,  1853,  when  Colonel 
Benton  issued  a  letter  of  great  length  addressed  to 
the  people  of  Missouri,  and  intended  for  publication, 
in  which  he  took  up  anew  and  with  characteristic 
vigor  the  agitation  of  the  Central  National  Highway 
scheme,  and  emphasized  the  establishment  of  a  ter 
ritorial  government  in  Nebraska  as  a  means  which 
would  facilitate  the  construction  of  the  Great  High 
way.94 

In  the  following  May,  he  wrote  a  letter  to  the 
citizens  of  Cole  county,  Missouri,95  in  which  he 
again  took  pains  to  make  clear  the  intimate  connec 
tion  between  the  establishment  of  a  territorial  gov 
ernment  in  Nebraska  and  the  "location,  construction 
and  support  of  the  great  central  railroad." 

Colonel  Benton  did  not  stop  here,  but  grossly 

94  The   letter   appeared   in   the   National  Intelligencer,   June   7,    1853. 

95  Dated  May  3,  1853;    'm  tne  Jefferson  Inquirer,  June  6,   1853,  and 
quoted    in    Chapter    IV. 


THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  JJ 

misrepresented  Atchison  as  not  only  not  favoring  the 
railroad,  but  as  being  actively  hostile  to  it;  and  also 
as  being  opposed  to  the  organization  of  a  territorial 
government,  and  therefore  as  acting  in  opposition 
to  the  most  important  interests  of  his  constituents. 

To  these  misrepresentations,  Senator  Atchison 
replied  in  speeches  delivered  at  Weston  and  Platte 
City  in  June,  i853,96  and  later  at  Parkville,97  and 
Fayette,98  explaining  his  position  "without  reserve  or 
disguise."  Appealing  to  his  record  in  Congress,  he 
pointed  out  that  in  1850,  two  days  after  Colonel  Ben- 
ton  had  introduced  his  bill  for  the  Great  National 
Highway,  he  himself  had  introduced  a  bill  granting 
to  Missouri  the  right  of  way  and  a  portion  of  the 
public  lands  for  the  purpose  of  aiding  in  the  con 
struction  of  a  railroad  from  St.  Louis  to  the  western 
limits  of  the  State.  He  had  also  at  previous  sessions 
introduced  into  the  Senate  a  bill  to  grant  the  right  of 
way  and  a  portion  of  the  public  lands  to  assist  in  the 
construction  of  a  railroad  from  Hannibal  to  St.  Jo 
seph.  These  bills  ultimately  became  laws.  The  sole 
credit  for  the  passage  of  these  measures  Atchison  did 
not  claim  for  himself.99  He  was  willing  to  share  it 
with  his  colleagues  and  they  with  him.  But  he  was 
careful  to  point  out  that  those  bills  became  "the  laws 

96  The  speeches  at  Weston   and  Platte  City,  June  6   and   n,  are  re 
ported  in  the  Missouri  Republican,  June  22,  1853. 

97  Aug.  8,  1853.     Reported  in  the  Missouri  Republican,  Aug.  31,  1853. 

98  Early  in  November,  1853.     Reported  in  the  Jefferson  Inquirer,  Nov. 
14,    1853. 

99  For  evidence  of  Atchison's  activity  in  procuring  land  grants  in  aid 
of  Missouri  railroads,  see  Cong.  Globe,  xxiii,  23,  35,  56,  78,  133,  215,  459, 
476,  624,  661. 


78  THE  REPEAL  OF 

of  the  land  since  the  exodus  of  the  'Old  Senator'  from 
that  chamber  which  he  so  beautifully  adorned  for 
thirty  years."  Senator  Atchison  then  went  on  to  ex 
plain  the  importance  of  this  legislation  and  his  own 
attitude  toward  a  railroad  to  the  Pacific: 

"The  land  obtained  by  these  measures  will  assist  in  the  con 
struction  of  two  roads  from  the  Mississippi,  both  pointing  to  the 
Pacific  Ocean,  either  of  them  long  links  in  the  chain  of  railroads 

yet  to  be  constructed Who  does  not  perceive  and  is  not 

willing  to  admit  that  the  grant  of  lands  thus  obtained  will  facili 
tate,  expedite  and  certainly  insure,  the  speedy  completion  of  the 
Hannibal  and  St.  Joseph  railroad,  the  Pacific  railroad  from  St. 
Louis  to  Kansas,  as  well  as  the  southwestern  branch  of  the  same, 
terminating  in  a  section  of  the  State  rich  in  resources  hitherto 
undeveloped.  Missouri  will  then  occupy  the  enviable  position  of 
being  able  to  offer  to  the  United  States  three  frontier  starting 
points  for  the  Pacific  railroad,  an  offer  which  cannot  be  made  by 
any  other  State  in  the  Union. 

"The  construction  of  these  roads  through  Missouri  will 
obviate  a  constitutional  objection,  entertained  by  many  as  to  the 
power  of  Congress  to  build  works  of  this  sort  through  the  State. 
In  obtaining  these  grants  of  land  the  first  link  toward  connecting 
by  railroad  the  valley  of  the  Mississippi  with  the  Pacific,  was 
heated,  formed  and  welded,  and  if  ever  the  connection  is  made, 
(and  I  doubt  not  it  will  be)  and  either  of  the  points  upon  our 
western  border  be  made  the  starting  point,  it  will  be  because  this 
link  has  been  made.  In  making  this  Colonel  Benton  had  no 
agency,  he  being  present  neither  at  the  heating,  forming,  welding 
or  completion  of  it 10° 

100  This  speech  included  the  following  caustic  reference  to  Colonel 
Benton:  "Now  fellow  citizens,  I  will  close  my  remarks  upon  the  subject 
of  the  Nebraska  Territory  and  the  Road  to  India  by  saying  that  I  sincerely 
believe  the  greatest  obstacles  to  the  success  of  both  these  measures  are  the 
position  of  our  Old  Senator  and  the  Old  Senator  himself,  with  his  arrogant 
dogmatism,  and  self-sufficiency.  Humbuggery  will  defeat  those  measures 
if  anything  can.  His  motives  spring  not  from  a  desire  for  the  public  good ; 
he  imagines  that  he  is  now  astride  of  two  popular  hobbies  and  he  will 


THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  79 

"I  will  now  give  you  briefly  my  opinion  of  the  railroad  to 
connect  the  valley  of  the  Mississippi  river  with  the  Pacific  coast. 
I  am  in  favor  of  the  construction  of  such  a  road  by  the  General 
Government  for  that  purpose.  I  will  vote  to  appropriate  land 
and  money.  I  believe  it  absolutely  necessary  for  the  preservation 
of  the  integrity  of  this  Union As  to  where  it  shall  com 
mence  or  where  it  shall  end,  that  is  a  matter  to  be  determined 
when  the  surveys  and  operations  now  in  progress  shall  be  com 
pleted,  and  the  route  it  must  take  between  the  termini  is  entirely 
dependent  upon  these  surveys.  We  may  bluster  about  a  northern, 
a  southern  and  a  central  route;  but  it  all  amounts  to  nothing; 

nothing  but  the  actual  surveys  can  determine  it I  have 

been  represented  by  my  enemies  as  being  opposed  to  the  whole 
measure.  Then  again  I  have  been  represented  as  being  in  favor 
of  a  southern  route  commencing  at  Galveston,  Texas,  running 
by  El  Paso;  at  another  time  in  favor  of  one  commencing  at 
Memphis  and  running  through  Arkansas,  Texas,  and  so  forth, 


ride  them  without  mercy.  He  announces  himself  a  candidate  for  the 
Senate  in  1855  to  take  my  place;  and  upon  these  hobbies  he  wishes  to  ride 

into  office Do  you  know  gentlemen,  that  Benton  has  been  from 

his  arrogance  and  tyrannical  bearing  in  the  Senate  considered  a  nuisance 
by  his  colleagues  in  that  body?  ....  Now  gentlemen,  Colonel  Benton 
has  but  little  influence  with  a  Democratic  Administration.  He  deserves 
none.  The  Colonel  is  very  well  understood  everywhere  but  at  home.  The 
Democrats  out  of  the  State  of  Missouri  do  not  recognize  him  as  one  of 
them.  The  Whigs  know  him  not.  Both  these  parties  look  upon  him  as 
an  outsider.  The  abolitionists  and  freesoilers,  however,  recognize  him  as 
one  of  their  most  distinguished  leaders,  and  verily  they  are  not  mistaken  in 
the  man.  He  has  done  more  for  their  cause  than  one  hundred  Garrisons, 

Hales,  Chases  or  Sewards " 

On  May  29,   Senator  Atchison  wrote   as  follows  to  Judge   S.  Treat: 
"I  will  speak  to  the  whole  State,  from  the  court  house  in  this  town 
[Platte  City]   on  Monday  next,   and  from  the  church  in  Weston  on  Sat 
urday  week.     My  theme  will  be  'Nebraska'  &  the  'road  to  India.'     I  will 
dwell  a  short  time  upon  the  reply  to  the  Holly  letter. 

"Of  all  the  humbugs  the  old  sinner  [Benton]  has  ever  mounted,  of  all 
the  lame,  blind,  windbroken,  &  spavined  hobbies,  the  old  villain  ever 
bestrode,  he  has  now  mounted  the  most  shabby,  his  'sitting  astraddle  of  the 
big  gun  when  it  bursted'  [on  board  the  man-of-war,  "Princeton"]  was 
nothing  to  it."  This  letter  is  reprinted  in  Mo.  Hist.  Soc.  Prof.,  ii,  90. 


8o  THE  REPEAL  OF 

and  of  any  route  that  would  be  most  inconvenient  and  prejudicial 
to  the  interests  of  Missouri.  Now  the  man  who  originated  these 
charges  and  those  who  publish  them  know  that  they  (I  will  not 
say  lie)  have  'said  the  thing  that  is  not  so.'  It  is  false  on  its 
face.  I  am  and  have  been  a  citizen  of  this  State  more  than  half 
my  years.  All  the  interest  I  have  on  earth  is  here.  You  know 
it  and  you  scorn  the  men  who  conceived,  uttered  and  published 

the  falsehood 

"But,  fellow  citizens,  Colonel  Benton  says  that  the  road  to 
the  Pacific  must  commence  at  Kansas  and  run  through  a  pass  in 
the  Rocky  Mountains,  the  pass  of  which  Leroux  and  Fremont 
speak,  and  through  which  Beal  is  to  travel  on  his  way  to  Califor 
nia,  and  nowhere  else,  and  Benton  and  Benton  men  put  me 
down  against  it  'because  of  my  dislike  of  Colonel  Benton.'  Now 
I  do  not  love  Benton;  that  is  well  known.  But  if  his  route 
should  prove  a  route  at  all  and  is  the  cheapest  and  best  route  and 
most  to  the  interest  of  Missouri,  I  will  vote  for  and  sustain  that 
route.  But,  fellow  citizens,  I  doubt  very  much  whether  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  can  agree  on  the  exact  point  of 
beginning  or  end  of  this  railroad  or  the  course  it.  shall  pursue 

between  the  termini There  is  no  doubt  in  my  mind  that 

a  large  majority  of  Congress  and  the  people  of  the  United  States 
are  in  favor  of  the  construction  of  a  railroad.  Colonel  Benton 
and  his  friends  will  have  it  that  Atchison,  Phelps,  etc.,  are  op 
posed  to  the  Great  Road  to  India.  It  was  proposed  at  the  last 
session  of  Congress  by  amendments  offered  to  Gwin's  bill  to  com 
mence  the  road  at  Galveston,  Vicksburg  and  Memphis.  All  such 
propositions  were  voted  down  by  large  majorities.  It  was  pro 
posed  by  Mr.  Chase  of  Ohio  to  commence  the  road  at  a  point 
between  the  southwest  corner  of  Missouri  and  the  Council  Bluffs. 
This  proposition  was  withdrawn.  My  opinion  is  that  this  matter 
of  the  termini  and  the  route  of  the  road  will  of  necessity  be  left  to 
the  discretion  of  the  President,  and  there  I  am  willing  to  leave 
it.  General  Pierce  has  no  personal  interest  in  it.  He  represents 
no  local  interest  but  the  whole  Union  is  in  his  keeping.  So  much 
for  the  railroad." 

One  important  result  of  the  prominence  given 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  8 1 

to  the  subject  of  a  railroad  from  the  Mississippi  to 
the  Pacific  in  1852-53  was  to  reawaken  interest  in 
Nebraska  Territory  and  to  impress  upon  the  people 
of  Missouri  and  Iowa  and  the  Wyandott  Indians  in 
Nebraska  the  necessity  of  establishing  a  territorial 
government  over  the  possible  route,  not  only  for  the 
protection  of  the  railroad  but  also  for  the  validation 
of  land  titles  and  for  the  promotion  of  settlement 
along  its  route. 

We  therefore  discover  the  final  movement  for 
the  organization  of  Nebraska  Territory  springing  up 
during  the  summer  of  1852  101  in  two  different  quar 
ters  —  among  the  Missouri  frontiersmen  and  among 
the  Wyandott  Indians  in  Nebraska.  Apparently 
these  movements  had  no  connection  at  the  beginning 
save  the  common  stimulus  furnished  by  the  railroad 
agitation.  But,  though  local  in  character  and  rep 
resenting  local  interests,  they  became  within  a  year 
very  closely  related  to  each  other  and  also  related  to 
the  political  fortunes  of  Benton  and  Atchison  during 
the  internecine  political  war  in  Missouri  described 
in  the  preceding  chapter,  and  therefore  they  consti 
tute  a  part  of  the  story  of  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise. 

On  the  seventeenth  of  June,  1852,  the  citizens  of 
Parkville,  Platte  county,  on  the  western  border  of 
Missouri,  convened  in  public  meeting  "for  the  pur 
pose  of  considering  the  propriety  of  petitioning  Con 
gress  for  the  organization  of  the  Territory  of  Nebras- 

lO1  In  December,  1851,  Hon.  Willard  P.  Hall  had  introduced  into  the 
House  his  abortive  bill  for  the  organization  of  the  Territory  of  "Platte;" 
Cong.  Globe,  xxiv,  Pt.  i,  80.  Mr.  Hall  resided  at  St.  Joseph,  Buchanan 
County,  Missouri,  in  the  western  part  of  the  State. 


82  THE  REPEAL  OF 

ka,  and  for  the  immediate  settlement  of  lands  lying 
therein"  from  which  the  Indian  title  had  been  ex 
tinguished.  After  free  discussion  a  resolution  was 
"unanimously  adopted  as  expressive  of  the  sense  of 
the  meeting,"  petitioning  Congress  for  "the  imme 
diate  organization  of  the  Territory  of  Nebraska," 
and  for  the  right  of  settlement  therein  as  soon  as  the 
Indian  titles  should  be  extinguished.102 


am  indebted  to  William  M.  Paxton,  Esq.,  of  Platte  City,  Mo., 
for  the  loan  of  the  Weekly  Platte  Argus  which  gives  an  account  of  this 
Parkville  meeting  in  its  issue  of  June  25,  1852.  The  preamble  and  res 
olutions  were  as  follows: 

"Whereas  the  limits  of  the  United  States  have  been  extended  to  the 
shores  of  the  Pacific  Ocean,  and  Oregon,  California,  Utah  and  New  Mexico 
have  been  constituted  a  part  of  this  Union;  and  Whereas,  That  the  Terri 
tory  of  Nebraska  has  been  made  the  connecting  section,  and  left  as  an  open 
space  between  the  two  flanks  of  civilization,  it  has  become  the  true  policy 
of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  that  this  space  should  be  closed 
up;  and  Whereas,  That  the  Territory  of  Nebraska  is  now  being  annually 
traversed  by  many  thousands  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  who  emi 
grate  from  the  States  of  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific  shores,  and  the  roads 
of  the  emigrants  leading  through  the  Territory  are  over  lands  of  great 
fertility,  and  which  are  well  suited  for  settlement  and  cultivation,  but 
which,  under  existing  circumstances,  are  withheld  from  settlement  and  culti 
vation,  and  allowed  to  present  to  the  emigrants  who  wend  their  way 
through  them,  only  the  face  of  dreariness  and  waste,  a  country  that  pro 
duces  nothing  for  the  support  of  men;  and  Whereas,  That  the  roads  of 
the  emigrants  stretch  over  the  uncultivated  lands  of  the  Territory  of 
Nebraska  for  the  distance  of  five  or  six  hundred  miles,  which  they  are 
compelled  to  traverse,  with  no  laws  to  protect  their  persons  or  property 
from  aggressions,  no  inns  or  taverns  to  afford  them  shelter  or  food,  no 
persons  to  furnish  them  with  forage  or  provisions,  no  physicians  to  prescribe 
for  them  when  attacked  with  disease,  while  they  are  subject  to  enormous 
tolls;  and  Whereas,  That  the  Territory  of  Nebraska  has  ceased  to  be  an 
available  hunting  ground  for  the  Indians  of  the  tribes  and  bands  claiming 
lands  therein: 

"Therefore,  Resolved,  That  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives 
of  the  United  States,  be  and  they  are  hereby  petitioned  to  provide  by  law 
for  the  immediate  organization  of  the  Territory  of  Nebraska,  and  fpr 
domiciling  the  Indians  of  the  several  tribes  and  bands  which  claim  lands 
lying  therein,  upon  small  parcels  of  land  to  be  assigned  to  them  for 


THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  83 

The  meeting  directed  that  a  record  of  its  pro 
ceedings  be  sent  to  the  President  of  the  United  States 
Senate,  to  Senator  David  R.  Atchison  and  to  Hon. 
Willard  P.  Hall,  of  the  House  of  Representatives, 
with  the  request  to  each  that  the  record  be  "laid  be 
fore  their  respective  bodies."  103 

Almost  simultaneously  with  this  popular  move 
ment  in  western  Missouri  there  appeared  a  move 
ment  having  a  similar  purpose  among  the  Wyandott 
Indians. 

The  Wyandotts,  having  resided  since  the  War 
of  1812  in  portions  of  Ohio  and  Michigan  in  close 
contact  with  the  whites,  had,  by  the  year  1843,  be- 

cultivation,  and  also  for  the  immediate  settlement  of  the  lands  of  the 
Territory  from  which  the  Indian  title  has  been  extinguished  by  American 
citizens  who  may  desire  to  emigrate  and  become  inhabitants  of  said 
Territory." 

Another  resolution  provided  "That  a  record  of  the  proceedings  of 
this  meeting  be  forwarded  to  the  editors  of  each  of  the  several  newspapers 
printed  in  the  counties  of  Platte  and  Clay  with  the  request  that  the  same 
be  published  in  their  respective  journals." 

Compare  this  description  of  conditions  along  the  emigrant  routes  in 
Nebraska  with  that  given  by  Abelard  Guthrie,  the  Nebraska  Territorial 
Delegate,  in  his  letter  to  Hon.  H.  L.  Dawes,  July  20,  1861,  to  be  found 
in  Connelley's  Prov.  Gov.,  74  if.;  and  with  the  remarks  of  Mr.  Hall  of 
Missouri  in  the  House,  Feb.  10,  1853,  Cong.  Globe,  xxvi,  558  ff. ;  also  with 
Douglas's  remarks,  July  8,  1852,  Cong.  Globe,  xxiv,  Pt.  ii,  1683. 

103  These  resolutions  were  presented  to  the  Senate  by  Senator  Atchison 
July  7,  1852;  Cong.  Globe,  xxiv,  Pt.  ii,  1666.  From  Douglas's  remarks  in 
the  Senate,  July  13,  1852,  it  appears  that  "memorials  upon  memorials  in 
piles,  from  all  the  western  States"  had  been  flowing  in  upon  the  Committee 
on  Territories  during  this  session  of  Congress  —  "memorials  for  the  pro 
tection  of  the  emigrant  lines  ....  between  the  Mississippi  river  and  the 
Pacific  ocean."  This  is  given  as  the  reason  for  the  introduction  into  that 
session  of  Congress  of  his  bill  to  protect  the  emigrant  route,  and  to  establish 
a  mail  route  and  a  telegraph  line  to  the  Pacific  coast.  From  his  own  state 
ment  at  the  time,  "I  was  not  ambitious  to  come  forward  with  a  proposition 
of  this  kind,"  it  may  be  inferred  that  he  was  acting  with  some  degree  of 
reluctance.  —  Cong.  Globe,  xxiv,  Pt.  i,  1161,  Pt.  ii,  1683,  Pt.  iii,  1760-1761. 


84  THE  REPEAL  OF 

come  quite  civilized.  "Families  founded  by  white 
captives  who  had  been  adopted  into  the  tribe  came 
into  the  ascendancy  in  the  affairs  of  the  tribe."  104 
Methodism  had  been  introduced  among  them,  and  a 
permanent  mission  established  in  their  midst.  Even 
a  lodge  of  Free  Masons  further  testified  to  their  prog 
ress  in  civilization.  They  had  developed  an  organ 
ized  government  based  upon  a  code  of  written  laws, 
which  provided  for  the  punishment  of  crimes  and  the 
maintenance  of  social  and  public  order.105 

The  Ohio  Wyandotts  were  the  last  of  the  tribes 
in  that  State  to  relinquish  their  lands,  but  in  1842 
they  ceded  them  to  the  United  States,  and  in  the  fol 
lowing  year  the  tribe,  then  numbering  about  seven 
thousand,  crossed  the  Mississippi,  carrying  with 
them,  of  course,  their  civilized  institutions.  Here 
they  purchased  thirty-six  sections  of  land  from  the 
Delawares,  located  in  the  fork  of  the  Missouri  and 
the  Kansas  rivers,  and  directly  opposite  Platte  and 
Buchanan  counties  in  Missouri.106 

Among  the  Wyandott  Nation  in  1852-53  there 

104  Kansas  Historical  Society's  Transactions,  xi,  98. 

105  Connelley's  Prov.  Gov.,  2-3,  and  Kan.  Hist.  Soc.  Transactions,  vi,  97 
ff.     See   also   R.   E.    Merwin's   paper,    "The  Wyandott   Indians,"   in   Kan. 
Hist.  Soc.  Trans.,  ix,  73   if. 

!06  Connelley's  Prov.  Gov.,  2-3.  In  1855  the  great  majority  of  the  Wy 
andotts  accepted  the  allotment  of  their  lands  in  severalty  and  dissolved  their 
tribal  relations.  Ibid.  "Immediately  at  the  confluence  of  the  Kaw  [Kan 
sas]  and  the  Missouri  lies  the  Wyandott  reserve.  It  is  small,  extending  six 
miles  from  the  mouth.  It  is  densely  timbered.  The  tribe  is  not  numerous, 
but  they  are  comparatively  civilized.  They  have  mostly  good  farms  and 
good  houses  for  the  West.  They  are  wealthy,  many  of  them  having  inter 
married  with  the  Whites."  —  Phillips's  Conquest  of  Kansas,  12. 

The  following  is  taken  from  the  Iowa  State  Gazette  of  November 
9,  1853:  "The  editor  of  the  Bloomington  (Mo.)  Republican  lately  visited 


°      J 

•    •  v  .,--..        -  *•••* 

THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  85 

were  not  a  few  men  of  education  and  ability  107  who 
had  watched  closely  the  consideration  by  Congress 
of  measures  which  might  affect  their  interests.  They 
had  observed  the  great  emigration  to  California  in 
1848-50  passing  through  their  lands  or  those  of 
neighboring  tribes.  They  were  aware  of  the  plans 
then  being  discussed  for  the  construction  of  a  rail 
road  to  the  Pacific  along  the  "central"  route.  "To 
them  the  purpose  to  build  this  road,  and  the  presence 
of  the  gold-hunters,  was  other  evidence  that  they  must 


the  Territory  (of  Nebraska)  and  since  his  return  writes  thus  about  it: 
'.  .  .  .  The  Wyandotts  are  all  civilized  and  generally  educated;  have  neat 
and  comfortable  buildings,  good  farms,  yet  not  extensive,  stock  in  abun 
dance,  and  live  in  pure  American  style.  While  on  a  recent  visit  to  Ne 
braska  we  dined  at  the  house  of  a  Mr.  Hicks,  supped  and  breakfasted  with 
a  Mr.  Garrett,  Wyandott  families,  and  we  can  say  truthfully  that  better 

tables  are  seldom  found  in  Missouri We  spent  several  hours  with 

William  Walker,  the  Provisional  Governor  of  Nebraska.  He  is  a  man  of 
very  affable  manners,  and  was  frank  and  free  in  his  communications  with 
us.  He  is  well  educated  and  possesses  fair  talents.  The  Shawnees,  Dela- 
wares,  Kickapoos  and  other  border  tribes  are  partially  civilized.  Many 
of  them  are  well  educated  and  speak  good  English.  We  could  hear  of 
no  tribes  that  desired  to  sell  and  leave  the  country.  Some  are  for  selling, 
reserving  a  preemption  right  and  becoming  citizens.  Others  are  for  selling 
part,  reserving  the  other  part,  ultimately  intending  to  become  citizens. 
In  our  opinion  the  Wyandotts,  Shawnees,  Delawares  and  Kickapoos  will 
finally  decide  to  adopt  the  first  of  these  plans.  The  border  tribes  are  very 
friendly  and  quite  kind ;  no  trouble  need  be  apprehended  with  any  of  them, 
if  justly  treated '  " 

107  Sketches  of  the  leading  men  in  the  Wyandott  Nation  at  this  time 
may  be  found  in  Connelley's  Prov.  Go<v.,  5  ff. 

In  speaking  afterwards  of  the  plans  of  the  radical  pro-slavery  party 
in  Missouri,  Judge  William  C.  Price  said: 

"One  of  the  things  which  proved  bad  for  us,  was  the  removal  of  the 
Wyandotts  to  the  mouth  of  the  Kansas  River.  It  was  not  the  intention 
that  they  should  settle  there.  They  were  to  have  a  large  tract  of  land  in 
Southern  Kansas  (what  is  now  Southern  Kansas).  No  one  supposed  that 
they  would  buy  land  of  another  tribe;  such  a  thing  had  not  been  thought 
of.  When  they  bought  land  of  the  Delawares  and  obtained  control  of  the 
mouth  of  the  Kansas  River  we  were  fearful  that  it  was  not  for  our  best 


86  THE  REPEAL  OF 

soon  surrender  their  lands.  They  came  to  the  conclu 
sion  that  this  was  inevitable.  If  they  must  sell  their 
lands,  they  desired  to  obtain  as  high  a  price  as  could 
be  procured.  They  came  to  see  that  the  organiza 
tion  of  Nebraska  territory  would  enhance  the  value 
of  their  lands,  and  from  thenceforth  were  in  favor 
of  the  measure."  108 

In  the  summer  or  autumn  of  1852  a  movement 
began  among  the  Wyandotts,  led  by  "a  few  daring 
and  resolute  spirits,"  whose  avowed  purpose  was  to 
force  upon  the  attention  of  Congress  the  organization 

interest;  there  were  too  many  white  men  in  the  tribe.  Then  the  tribe  came 
recently  from  Ohio  where  there  was  much  opposition  to  slavery,  and 
where  existed  the  most  successful  underground  railroad  for  conveying 
slaves  to  Canada.  Then  again,  this  tribe  had  but  just  settled  at  the  mouth 
of  the  Kansas  River  when  the  division  of  the  Methodist  Church  into 
Northern  and  Southern  parts  caused  almost  a  war  between  the  factions 
of  the  tribe.  The  portion  of  the  tribe  which  wished  to  remain  with  the 
Old  Church  cried  out  against  slavery,  and  the  question  was  kept  in  con 
stant  agitation  where  we  most  desired  nothing  said.  When  it  was  sup 
posed  that  Nebraska  Territory  would  be  organized  we  were  often  solicited 
by  the  faction  in  favor  of  the  Church,  South,  to  take  a  hand,  but  we  were 
averse  to  doing  that  and  hoped  the  question  would  quiet  down.  However, 
it  did  not  do  so.  Benton,  Blair,  Brown,  even  Phelps,  encouraged  its  agita 
tion.  The  moving  spirits  in  the  cause  of  the  Church,  North,  and  in  con 
demning  slavery,  were  J.  M.  Armstrong  and  Abelard  Guthrie.  Guthrie 
remained  in  Washington  much  of  the  time,  as  we  believed  then,  at  Ben- 
ton's  expense.  At  any  rate,  it  was  known  that  he  and  Benton  were  much 
together;  we  had  no  doubt  they  acted  in  concert."  Reported  by  William 
E.  Connelley. 

108  Wm.  E.  Connelley,  in  Kan.  Hist.  Soc.  Trans.,  vi,  100.  "It  was  the 
Indians,  not  the  indigenous,  but  the  emigrant  Indians  themselves,  especially 
the  Wyandotts,  that  warmly  favored  the  occupation  by  white  people  of  the 
vacant  lands  and  ultimate  organization  of  the  Territory.  They  foresaw 
that  the  pressure  westward  and  from  the  Pacific  slope  eastward  of  emigra 
tion  would  ere  long  force  the  Government  to  abandon  its  restrictive  policy. 
The  Wyandotts  and  such  whites  as  were  within  their  tribe  took  the 
initiatory  step  by  holding  an  election  for  a  delegate  to  Congress  in  the  fall 

of   1852 "  —  Governor  Walker's  "Notes  on  the  Early  History  of 

Nebraska,"  in  Connelley's  Prov.  Gov.,  58  if. 


THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  87 

of  a  territorial  government  for  Nebraska.109  The 
first  definite  step  was  the  election  of  a  "Delegate  to 
Congress."  This  occurred  on  the  twelfth  of  Oc 
tober,  1852,  in  the  Council  House  of  the  Wyandott 
Nation.  All  the  votes  cast  were  for  Mr.  Abelard 
Guthrie,  a  white  man  who  had  married  a  Wyandott 
woman  and  later  had  been  adopted  into  the  tribe.110 
Upon  the  twentieth  of  November,  1852,  Guthrie 
set  out  for  Washington.  From  Cincinnati,  he  wrote  a 

!09  Governor  Walker's  "Notes  on  Nebraska  Territory,"  in  Connelley's 
Prov.  Gov.,  60-61.  Names  of  Wyandott  leaders  are  given  in  Kan. 
Hist.  Soc.  Trans.,  vi,  102.  In  a  letter  dated  June  26,  1856,  Abelard 
Guthrie,  the  "Territorial  Delegate"  wrote  to  Hon.  Israel  Washburn:  "Four 
years  had  elapsed  since  the  last  abortive  attempt  to  organize  a  government 
for  Nebraska,  and  the  people  of  that  Territory  had  but  little  reason  to 
believe  that  their  interests  would  be  attended  to  until  they  sent  a  delegate 
to  urge  them  upon  the  consideration  of  Congress.  They  had  observed  that 
this  course  had  been  pursued  by  the  people  of  Oregon,  of  Utah,  of  New 
Mexico  and  of  Minnesota,  with  success." 

Mr.  Connelley  states  that  the  Wyandotts  sent  a  petition  to  the  first 
session  of  the  32d  Congress  praying  for  the  organization  of  Nebraska  Ter 
ritory.  Connelley's  Prov.  Gov.,  102.  No  authority  or  reference  is  given 
for  this  statement,  and  I  have  been  unable  to  verify  it. 

110  Speaking  of  this  election,  Governor  Walker  wrote:  ".  .  .  .  But 
a  serious  question  at  hand  had  to  be  solved:  Who  would  go,  if  elected, 
and  run  the  risk  of  having  to  pay  his  own  expenses  to,  at  and  from  Wash 
ington,  as  it  was  extremely  doubtful  whether  the  delegate  so  elected  would 
be  admitted  to  a  seat.  Mr.  A.  G.,  a  man  of  talents  and  some  experience 
in  public  life,  having  'done  the  State  some  service'  in  other  responsible 
positions,  offered  his  services  and  was  duly  elected  amidst  the  opposition 
of  Government  officials,  the  military  especially.  There  being  no  existing 
provisional  government  in  the  Territory  to  give  official  evidence  to  Mr.  G. 
of  his  election,  he  took  with  him  the  poll  books  as  prima  facie  evidence  of 
his  election."  —  "Notes  on  Nebraska  Territory,"  in  Connelley's  Prov.  Gov., 
60-61.  Guthrie  had  first  become  interested  in  the  Wyandotts  while  filling 
the  office  of  Register  of  the  Land  Office  in  Upper  Sandusky,  Ohio,  under 
President  Tyler  in  1842.  He  followed  the  Wyandotts  to  Nebraska  in  1843. 
A  sketch  of  his  life  and  a  photograph  are  given  in  Connelley's  Prov. 
Gov.,  101  ff. 


88  THE  REPEAL  OF 

letter  m  to  William  Walker  of  the  Wyandott  Na 
tion112  which  states  that  he  had  travelled  from  St. 
Louis  in  company  with  Messrs.  Geyer  and  Atchison, 
the  Senators  from  Missouri,  Representative  Richard 
son,  then  chairman  of  the  House  Committee  on  Ter 
ritories,  and  Mr.  W.  H.  Bissell,  both  of  Illinois.113 
The  chief  significance  of  the  letter  lies  in  the  indi 
cation  which  it  gives  of  the  attitude  of  both  Atchison 
and  Benton  toward  the  organization  of  Nebraska 
Territory  more  than  a  year  before  the  introduction 
into  Congress  of  the  bill  finally  known  as  the  Kan 
sas-Nebraska  bill.  In  view  of  Guthrie's  interest  in 
the  matter,  he  would  naturally  seek  and  be  entitled 
to  know  exactly  how  they  stood  upon  the  subject 
The  following  passage  from  the  letter  is  accordingly 
entitled  to  considerable  weight: 

"I  am  sorry  to  say  that  our  Missouri  Senators  are  by  no 
means  favorable  to  our  Territorial  projects.  The  slavery  ques 
tion  is  the  cause  of  this  opposition.  I  regret  that  it  should  inter 
fere  —  it  ought  not.  Mr.  Atchison  thinks  that  the  slaves  of 
Nebraska  114  are  already  free  by  the  operation  of  the  Missouri 


111  Dated  December  i,  1852.     Printed  in  Connelley's  Prov.  Gov.y  76-77. 

112  William  Walker  was   elected   Provisional    Governor   of   Nebraska 
Territory  in  1853. 

113  "Colonel  Bissell  took  great  interest  in  the  Missouri  conflict  and  was 
constantly  in  correspondence  with  the  leaders   ....    [Benton,  Blair,  and 
Brown]   and  at  times  met  them  in  consultation.     No  man  in  Illinois  was 
held  in  higher  estimation  by  the  early  workers  for  Free  Soil  in  Missouri 
than    Colonel   Bissell."  —  Charles   P.   Johnson's   "Personal   Recollections   of 
Some  Eminent  Statesmen  and  Lawyers  of  Illinois,"  in  Illinois  State  His 
torical  Library's  Publications,  No.  p,  47. 

114  The    following   occurs    in   Phillips's    Conquest   of  Kansas    (1856), 
16-17: 

"But  even  while  Kansas  was  guaranteed  to  freedom,  slavery  was  intro 
duced.  Nearly  all  of  the  Indian  agents  were  slavery  propagandists,  and 
many  of  them  owned  slaves.  The  first  slavery  in  the  Territory,  however, 


THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  89 

Compromise,  and  asks  the  repeal  of  that  act  before  anything 
shall  be  done  for  Nebraska',  this  would  put  us  back  till  doomsday 
for  no  Congress  as  our  Government  now  stands  will  ever  repeal 
that  act.  But  for  myself  I  do  not  consider  it  binding  upon  the 
people  in  moulding  their  state  institutions.  However,  since  the 
South  take  a  different  view  of  it,  we  must  fight  it  out.  I  foresee 
the  struggle  will  be  a  fierce  one  but  it  will  be  short  and  therefore 
not  dangerous.  I  did  not  expect  to  accomplish  this  object  without 
trouble;  and  I  feel  prepared  for  it.  One  incentive  to  determined 
perseverance  is  the  fact  that  I  beat  Bannow  at  his  own  election, 
so  Mr.  Atchison  informs  me.  11S  I  shall  certainly  endeavor  to 
merit  the  good  opinion  my  friends  have  formed  of  me.  I  am  full 
of  hope  and  confidence  as  I  have  been  from  the  start.  I  called  to 
see  Col.  Benton  but  he  had  gone  to  Washington.  This  is  fortu 
nate,  for  he  is  our  friend  and  can  do  us  great  service.  116  The 
measure  will  succeed,  short  as  the  time  is,  and  with  an  opposition 
where  we  ought  to  have  support "  117 

Guthrie   arrived   in  Washington   December  5, 

was  introduced  by  one  who  came  professedly  to  preach  the  Gospel 

The  Reverend  Thomas  Johnson  ....  is  said  to  have  first  introduced 
slavery  into  Kansas.  He  introduced  and  held  slaves  at  the  time  when  the 
existence  of  the  restriction  rendered  it  a  violation  of  the  spirit  of  the 
temporal  law." 

115  Referring  to  this  election,   Mr.   Guthrie   said:     "At   Fort  Leaven- 
worth   ....    (where  the  largest  body  of  citizens  resided)   the  officer  in 
command  of  the  post  [Col.  T.  T.  Fauntleroy]  forbade  an  election.     Subse 
quently,    however,   certain   persons   proposed    holding    another   election,    to 
overturn  the  first.     This  election  was  held  at  Fort  Leavenworth  (the  com 
manding  officer  having  abandoned  his  opposition),  and  resulted  in  a  large 
majority   for  me,   I   think,   54  to   16."     According  to   Mr.    Connelley,   this 
second  election  in  which  Mr.  Bannow    (or  Barrow)    ran  against  Guthrie, 
was  at  the  suggestion  of  Senator  Atchison;  Kan.  Hist.  Soc.  Trans.,  vi,  102. 

116  To  this  point  the  italics  are  mine;  those  that  follow  are  Guthrie's. 

117  Referring  to  Mr.  Guthrie's  services  in  connection  writh  the  estab 
lishment   of    a   territorial    government   in    Nebraska,    Mr.    Connelley   says: 
"All   the   evidence  I   have  been   able  to  obtain   and   examine   shows   that 
he    was    acting   with,    and    largely    for,    Senator    Thomas    H.    Benton    of 
Missouri,  although  he  says  that  the  idea  was  his  own  and  that  'solitary  and 
alone'  he  undertook  this  work "  —  Prov.  Gov.,  101. 


90  THE  REPEAL  OF 

1852,  the  day  before  Congress  opened.118  Evidently 
at  first  he  experienced  up-hill  work  in  pressing  the 
claims  of  Nebraska  upon  members  of  Congress,  for 
we  find  him  writing  again  to  Walker  on  the  ninth  of 
December:119 

"  .  .  .  .  There  is  no  business  which  tries  a  man's  patience 
and  good  nature  so  much  as  trying  to  do  business  with  men  who 
feel  that  their  self-interests  are  not  intimately  connected  with  your 

projects I  have  ascertained  almost  to  a  certainty  that  I 

shall  not  get  my  seat.  But  that  is  a  small  matter.  I  never  ex 
pected  it  and  am  not  disappointed,  but  my  faith  is  still  strong 
that  much  will  be  effected." 

There  were  causes  for  hope  rather  than  discour 
agement: 

"Mr.  Hall  has  proposed  a  bill  organizing  one  Territory,  he 
has  given  it  the  name  of  Platte ;  which  I  don't  like  but  don't  care 
much  about  the  name  though  I  shall  try  to  have  the  old  name 
retained.  His  bill  has  not  yet  been  introduced  but  it  is  all 
ready  and  I  think  will  be  presented  next  week;  if  not  another 
will  be  introduced  by  the  Committee  on  Territories.  The  Chair 
man  [Richardson]  of  that  Committee  has  given  me  assurances 
to  that  effect.  Mr.  Hall's  bill  says  nothing  about  slavery  but 
leaves  untouched  the  Missouri  Compromise.  The  Territory  it  is 
pretty  confidently  believed  will  be  free." 

He  then  speaks  of  a  measure  which  actually 
passed  that  session  of  Congress  and  prepared  the 
way  for  the  organization  of  the  territorial  govern 
ment:120 

"Another  measure  highly  beneficial  to  our  interest  will  be  the 


118  Connelley's  Prov.  Gov.,  79,  81. 

119  This  letter  may  also  be  found  in  Connelley's  Prov.  Gov.,  78-79. 

120  This  was  introduced  by  J.  S.  Phelps,  a  Representative  from  Mis 
souri,   as   an    amendment  to   the   Indian   Appropriation  bill,   February  24, 
1853 ;    Cong.    Globe,   xxvi,    825.     The    Act,    approved,   may   be    found    in 
Cong.   Globe,  xxvii,  359. 


THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  91 

appropriation  of  one  hundred  thousand  dollars  to  enable  the  Pres 
ident  to  negotiate  with  the  different  tribes  for  their  surplus  lands 
and  other  purposes.  You  will  therefore  have  commissioners  au 
thorized  to  treat  early  in  the  spring.  This  is  important  and  you 
may  regard  it  as  a  'fixed  fact.'  .  .  .  ." 

True  to  his  expectation,  Mr.  Guthrie  witnessed 
the  next  week  the  introduction  by  Mr.  Hall  of  the 
bill  mentioned  in  the  letter  to  Walker,  and  its  refer 
ence  to  the  Committee  on  Territories.121 

Four  days  after  the  introduction  and  reference 
of  Mr.  Hall's  bill,  Mr.  Phelps  of  Missouri  presented 
the  memorial  of  Mr.  Guthrie  asking  to  be  admitted 
to  a  seat  on  the  floor  of  the  House  as  a  "Territorial 
Delegate."  The  memorial  was  referred  to  the  Com 
mittee  on  Elections122  and  "a  report  was  made  there 
on  and  ordered  to  be  printed,  but  no  further  action 
was  had  upon  it."  "As  was  feared,"  to  quote  Wil 
liam  Walker,  "he  was  not  admitted  to  a  seat  in  the 
House,  though  his  election  was  admitted,  yet  he  did 
good  service  'on  his  own  charges'  in  the  character  of 
a  'lobby  member.'  " 123 

On  the  second  of  February,  1853,  Mr.  Richard 
son,  for  the  Committee  on  Territories,  reported  Hall's 
bill  with  amendments,  which  after  considerable  de 
bate  passed  the  House  on  the  tenth  of  February,  by  a 
vote  of  98  to  43. ] 


124 


121  December  13,  1852;   Cong.   Globe,  xxvi,  47. 

122  December  17,  1852;  Cong.  Globe,  xxvi,  85,  1127.     "Report  of  House 
Committee  on  Elections,"  April  3,  1862,  in  Connelley's  Prov.  Gov.,  67  ff; 
House  Journal,  2d  Sess.,  32d  Cong.,  50. 

123  Walker's  "Notes  on  the  Early  History  of  Nebraska,"  in  Connelley's 
Prov.  Gov.,  58  ff. 

124  Cong.  Globe,  xxvi,  558  ff.     Before  leaving  this  part  of  our  subject, 
it  may  be  well  to  give  a  few  more  facts  regarding  Guthrie.     In  1854  and 


92  THE  REPEAL  OF 

The  principal  participants  in  this  debate  were 
Houston  of  Alabama,  Brooks  of  New  York,  and 
Howard  of  Texas,  in  opposition  to  the  bill;  and  Hall 
of  Missouri  defending  and  supporting  it.  The  re- 

1856  Guthrie  submitted  to  the  House  memorials  asking  for  the  passage  of 
an  act  whereby  he  should  receive  mileage  and  per  diem  for  the  period 
during  which  he  acted  as  "Territorial  Delegate."  —  House  Journal,  ist 
Sess.,  33d  Cong.,  170,  408,  615;  ibid.,  ist  Sess.,  34th  Congress,  Pt.  ii,  1342; 
House  Reports,  ist  Sess.,  34th  Cong.,  No.  257. 

The  matter  dragged  along  until  1862  when  the  House  Committee  on 
Elections,  to  which  the  memorial  had  been  referred,  reported  favorably 
to  Guthrie's  claim,  citing  as  precedents  the  case  of  similar  "Delegates"  from 
New  Mexico  and  Utah.  In  Mr.  Connelley's  Provisional  Government  are 
reprinted  the  letters  written  by  Guthrie  to  Hon.  Israel  Washburn,  and  Hon. 
Henry  L.  Dawes,  chairmen  at  different  times  of  the  House  Committee  on 
Elections  while  Guthrie's  claim  was  pending,  and  also  the  final  report  of 
the  Committee,  just  mentioned.  —  House  Reports,  2d  Session,  37th  Congress, 
No.  67.  These  letters  are  designed  to  prove  particularly  the  propriety  and 
necessity  which  existed  in  1852-53  of  the  establishment  of  a  territorial  gov 
ernment  and  the  sending  of  a  delegate  to  Congress.  They  incidentally 
show  something  of  Guthrie's  activity,  although  perhaps  in  a  somewhat 
exaggerated  degree,  but  they  do  not  throw  much  light  upon  the  connection 
of  Benton  and  Atchison  with  the  project. 

In  view  of  what  Judge  Price  said  about  the  Wyandotts  and  Guthrie, 
it  may  be  well  to  quote  here  a  few  closing  sentences  from  Guthrie's  letter 
to  Mr.  Dawes,  dated,  Washington,  July  21,  1861: 

"Allow  me  also,  if  you  please,  to  submit  the  following  propositions: 

"If  your  Committee  have  any  sufficient  evidence  or  can  procure  any, 
that  it  was  the  intention  of  the  party  then  [1853-54]  m  power,  or  any  other 
party,  to  organize  this  Territory  within  any  reasonable  or  definite  period, 
I  will  abandon  my  claim. 

"If  the  Committee  have  any  sufficient  evidence,  or  can  procure  any, 
that  there  was  any  other  course  as  likely  to  succeed  in  securing  an  organ 
ization  as  that  of  sending  to  Congress  a  man  acquainted  with  the  condi 
tions,  wants,  soil,  climate  and  resources  of  the  Territory,  I  will  give  up 
my  claim 

"If  the  Committee  have  any  sufficient  evidence,  or  can  obtain  any,  that 
this  Territory  would  not  eventually  have  been  received  into  the  Union  as  a 
slave  State  under  the  skillful  management  and  well-matured  plans  of  South 
ern  Statesmen  and  their  Northern  friends,  I  will  abandon  my  claim 

"If  the  Committee  have  any  evidence,  or  can  get  any,  that  my  move 
ment  for  a  government  did  not  frustrate  this  design,  I  will  abandon  my 
claim "  Connelley's  Prov.  Gov.,  74  ff. 


THE   MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  93 

marks  of  the  two  last-named,  were  more  extended 
than  those  of  any  other  speakers.  The  main  objection 
raised  to  the  bill  was  that  the  erection  of  a  territorial 
government  around  the  various  Indian  tribes  in  the 
Nebraska  country  would  constitute  a  violation  of 
existing  treaty  stipulations  with  those  tribes. 

The  only  allusion  to  the  subject  of  slavery  in 
the  course  of  this  debate  was  the  brief  and  oft-quoted 
colloquy  between  Giddings  of  Ohio  and  Howe  of 
Pennsylvania.  The  latter  inquired  of  Mr.  Gid 
dings,  who  was  a  member  of  the  Committee  on  Terri 
tories  reporting  the  bill,  why  there  was  no  clause  in^ 
the  bill  prohibiting  slavery  in  the  new  Territory. 
Mr.  Giddings  replied  in  effect  that  the  Missouri 
Compromise  restriction  applied  to  all  of  that  region. 
Thereupon  Mr.  Howe  made  the  rejoinder:  "I  •' 
should  like  to  know  of  the  gentleman  from  Ohio,  if 
he  has  not  some  recollection  of  a  compromise  made 
since  then."  To  which  Mr.  Giddings  answered, 
"That  does  not  affect  this  question."  The  inference 
always  drawn  from  the  incident  is  that  Mr.  Howe, 
and  perhaps  other  persons,  had  conceived  that  in 
some  way  or  other  the  Missouri  Compromise  prohi 
bition  had  been  impaired  by  the  compromise  meas 
ures  of  iS^o.125 

A  week  after  the  bill  passed  the  House,  Senator 

12$  Cong.  Globe,  xxvi,  558  ff.  There  is  considerable  evidence  tending 
to  prove  that  the  extremists  in  the  South  took  it  for  granted  that  the  Missouri 
Compromise  was  repealed  by  the  Compromise  of  1850.  This  would  go  far 
toward  explaining  the  very  general  apathy  and  indifference  to  the  Repeal 
while  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  was  pending  in  Congress  which  is  revealed 
by  an  examination  of  the  leading  southern  newspapers.  See  an  editorial 
in  the  New  York  Tribune,  December  14,  1853  ;  and  an  editorial  in  the  St. 
Louis  Intelligencer,  November  10,  1850,  quoted  in  Chapter  VI,  note  268. 


94  THE  REPEAL  OF 

Douglas  reported  it  to  the  Senate  without  amend 
ment,  and  on  the  last  day  of  the  session,  he  moved  to 
take  it  up  for  consideration.  Objection  was  at  once 
made  by  Mr.  Rusk  of  Texas,  and  Mr.  Adams  of 
Mississippi  immediately  raised  the  question  regard 
ing  Indian  rights  which  had  been  threshed  over  in 
the  House.  The  Senate  refused  to  consider  the  bill. 
It  is  worth  while  digressing  at  this  point  to  bring 
out  the  striking  contrast  to  the  activity  of  Missou- 
rians,  lowans  and  Wyandotts  in  promoting  the  or 
ganization  of  Nebraska  Territory  presented  by  the 
inaction  of  Senator  Douglas.  Mr.  Douglas's  con 
nection  with  the  Nebraska  bill  in  March,  1853,  just 
mentioned,  is  the  first  indication  of  any  interest  on 
his  part  in  Nebraska  since  December,  1848.  Yet  he 
had  the  assurance  to  say  in  the  Senate  on  this  occa 
sion:126 

"I  must  remind  my  friend  from  Mississippi  [Mr.  Adams] 
that  eight  years  ago,  when  he  and  I  were  members  of  the  House 
of  Representatives,  I  was  then  pressing  the  Nebraska  bill,  and 
that  I  have  ever  since  been  pressing  it.  I  have  tried  to  get  it 
through  for  eight  long  years " 

This  statement  is  the  basis  for  thp  wiHpJy_rnr- 
rent,  but  erroneous,  opinion  that  the  organization  of 
a  territorial  government  in  Nebraska  had  been  a  pet 
measure  with  Mr.  Douglas  for  nearly  a  decade  be 
fore  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  An 
examination  of  the  sources  justifies  the  statement  that 
Mr.  Douglas's  efforts  in  this  direction  have  been 
very  greatly  exaggerated.  Whatever  efforts  Mr. 
Douglas  may  have  put  forth  between  1848  and  1853 

126  Cong.    Globe,  xxvi,    1117;    see   also   Douglas's   speech   at   Chicago, 
November  9,  1854,  and  Cutts's  Const,  and  Party  Questions,  87. 


THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  95 

in  the  interest  of  Nebraska  appear  to  have  been  lim 
ited  to  private  interviews  and  to  the  sessions  of  the 
Committee  on  Territories,  of  which  we  have  no  rec 
ord.  The  indexes  of  the  Congressional  Globe  and 
of  the  House  and  Senate  Journals  fail  to  disclose  the 
introduction  by  him  of  any  Nebraska  territorial  bill 
after  the  year  1848  until  he  reported  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill  in  January,  1854.  After  December, 
1848,  there  ensued  on  his  part  more  than  four  years 
of  silence  upon  the  subject  of  Nebraska  Territory. 
On  the  other  hand,  other  members  of  Congress  had 
been  manifesting  in  the  interim  a  degree  of  interest 
quite  in  contrast  to  that  of  Mr.  Douglas.  Let  us 
take  up  in  order  the  various  Nebraska  bills  which 
came  before  Congress  prior  to  1854  an(^ see  tne  occa~ 
sion  of  their  introduction  and  who  had  been  their 
promoters. 

The  original  suggestion  of  a  territorial  govern 
ment  for  the  Nebraska  country  appeared  in  the  an 
nual  report  of  Hon.  William  Wilkins,  Secretary  of 
War  under  President  Tyler,  dated  November  30, 
i844.127  After  referring  to  the  explorations  of  Lieu 
tenant  Fremont  and  of  the  reluctance  of  Congress  to 
organize  a  territorial  government  over  the  Oregon 
country  owing  to  the  conflicting  claims  of  England, 
the  Secretary  goes  on  to  recommend  the  organization 
of  a  territorial  government  in  the  region  east  of  the 
Rocky  Mountains,  to  be  called  Nebraska  Territory, 
"in  connection  with,  and  preliminary  to,  the  extension 


127  This  report  may  be  found  in  full  in  House  Executive  Documents, 
2d  Sess.,  28th  Cong.,  i,  124  ff. 


96  THE  REPEAL  OF 

in  that  direction  of  our  military  posts." 128  The  first 
suggestion,  therefore,  of  a  territorial  government  for 
Nebraska  was  made  with  a  view  to  strengthen  our 
claim  upon  the  Oregon  region  and  to  obtain  a  foot 
hold  upon  the  Pacific  coast,  but  it  did  not  originate 
with  the  Senator  from  Illinois.  Indeed,  it  appears 
to  have  been  this  recommendation  which  first  sug 
gested  to  Mr.  Douglas  the  idea  of  a  territorial  gov 
ernment  in  Nebraska  and  which  led  him  to  introduce 
his  first  Nebraska  bill  in  December,  1844.  129 

128  "Although,"   to   use   the    Secretary's   own   words,    "the   number   of 
inhabitants  engaged  in  agriculture   and  other  pursuits  within  those  limits 
do  not  afford  an  amount  of  population  at  all  adequate,  at  present,  to  the 
formation    of    a    full    and    complete    territorial    government;    yet   such    an 
inchoate  or  preliminary  organization  might  be  now  adopted,  as  would  be 
necessary  to  extend  the  control   and  authority  of  the  general   government, 
and   to   throw    its   protection    around   our    emigrants   to    Oregon,    in   their 
passage   through    this   country."     In    support   of    his    recommendation,    the 
Secretary  then  proceeds  to   argue  that   "A  territorial  organization  of  the 
country,  and  a  military  force  placed  on  the  very  summit  whence  flow  all 
the  great  streams  of  the  North  American  continent,  either  into  the  Gulf  of 
Mexico  or  the  Pacific  Ocean,  would  not  longer  leave  our  title  to  the  Oregon 
territory  a  barren  or  untenable  claim.     Its  possession  and  occupancy  would 
thenceforth  not  depend  upon  the  naval   superiority  on  the  Pacific  Ocean. 
Troops  and  supplies  from  the  projected  Nebraska  Territory  would  be  able 
to  contend  for  its  possession  with  any  force  coming  from  the  sea.     Natural 
obstructions  in  the  navigation  of  the  Columbia  river  would  enable  settle 
ments  gradually  to  approach  the  coast  in  defiance    (if  it  should  come  to 
that)    of  any  navy  in  the  world.     The  time,  indeed,  might  not  be  distant 
when  these  very  settlements  would   supply   all  the  elements  which  might 
be  needed,  of  naval  strength,  to  give  us  our  natural  and  proper  position 

on  the  Pacific  Ocean "     The  military  side  of  this  suggestion  may 

be  traced  back  through  the  messages  of  President  Tyler,  dated,  December, 
1843,  and  December  6,  1842.     See  Richardson's  Messages  and  Papers  of  the 
Presidents,  iv,  196,  258,  337. 

129  Following   close   upon   the   report   of   the    Secretary   of   War,    Mr. 
Douglas,  then  serving  his  first  term  in  the  House,   gave  notice  of  a  bill 
to   establish   a  territorial   government   in   Nebraska.     Five   days   thereafter 
he  introduced  a  bill  for  the  establishment  of  a  territorial  government  along 
the    lines    suggested   by    the    Secretary   of   War.     (December    n    and    16, 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  97 

After  a  silence  of  nearly  four  years,  so  far  as 
the  official  record  shows,  the  second  Nebraska  terri 
torial  bill  was  introduced  by  Mr.  Douglas,  who  was 
then  serving  his  first  term  as  Senator,  in  March, 
1848.  The  bill  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Territories,  reported  back  on  the  twentieth  of 
April,  and  made  a  special  order  for  the  twenty- 
sixth.130  It  has  been  impossible  to  discover  that 
any  further  action  was  had  upon  the  bill.  It  is 
also  impossible  to  state  positively  what  led  Mr. 
Douglas  to  introduce  it.  It  is  highly  probable,  how 
ever,  that  the  impulse  came  from  the  State  of  Mis 
souri.  The  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
discloses  the  fact  that  three  months  before  Mr.  Doug 
las  introduced  his  second  bill,  a  memorial  from  the 
Legislature  of  the  State  of  Missouri  on  the  subject 
of  the  organization  of  a  territory  west  of  that  State 
was  presented  to  the  House  by  Hon.  J.  S.  Phelps 
of  Missouri.131  A  few  weeks  later,  Mr.  Atchison  of 
Missouri,  presented  the.  same  memorial  in  the  Sen 
ate.132  The  memorial  argued,  in  brief,  that  on  the 

1844.)  On  the  seventh  of  January,  1845,  an  amendatory  bill  was  reported 
back  to  the  House  by  Hon.  Aaron  V.  Brown,  of  Tennessee,  for  the  Com 
mittee  on  Territories.  This  bill  was  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the 
whole  House,  and  was  never  again  called  up.  —  Cong.  Globe,  xiv,  21,  41, 
J65,  173.  Connelley's  Prov.  Gov.,  22. 

!30  Cong.  Globe,  xviii,  467,  656,  685.     Connelley's  Prov.  Gov.,  22. 

131  December   20,    1847.     House  Journal,    ist    Sess.,    3oth    Cong.,    120. 
For  the  legislative  history  of  this  memorial,  see  Missouri  House  Journal, 
1846-47,  428,  461,  476,  488,  492,  495 ;   and  Missouri  Senate  Journal,  1846- 
47,  460. 

132  January  31,  1848.     Senate  Journal,  ist  Sess.,  3oth  Cong.,  141.     In 
each  House  the  memorial  was  referred  to  the   Committee  on  Territories. 
The  memorial  had  been  introduced  into  the  Missouri  House  by  Mr.  N.  B. 
Holden;    it  passed  without  serious  opposition,   and  was   approved  on  the 


98  THE  REPEAL  OF 

west  of  Iowa,  Missouri,  Louisiana  and  Arkansas, 
there  lay  a  territory  of  unrivaled  fertility,  amply 
sufficient  for  the  formation  of  five  large  States,  but 
then  in  the  possession  of  a  mere  handful  of  Indians. 
The  memorial,  without  mentioning  the  subject  of 
slavery,  urged  the  extinguishment  of  Indian  titles, 
and  the  organization  of  a  territorial  government, 
especially  for  the  region  directly  west  of  Missouri. 
At  the  opening  of  the  next  session  of  Congress,13' 
Mr.  Douglas  gave  notice  of  a  new  Nebraska  bill,  and 
also  notice  of  bills  for  the  organization  of  territorial 
governments  in  Minnesota  and  New  Mexico,  all  of 
which  were  introduced  by  him  on  the  twentieth  of 
December,  1848,  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Territories  of  which  he  was  the  chairman.  Upon  the 
Nebraska  bill  no  further  action  was  had.  The  only 
importance  attaching  to  this  third  bill  introduced  by 
Mr.  Douglas  within  a  period  of  four  years  consists 
in  the  fact  that  it  was  the  last  Nebraska  bill  intro 
duced  by  him  until  he  reported  the  substitute  bill  of 
the  twenty-third  of  January,  1854,  repealing  the  Mis 
souri  Compromise.134 

During  the  three  years  from  December,  1848  to 
December,  1851,  the  official  records  of  Congress  con- 
sixteenth  of  February,  1847.  See  the  Missouri  Republican,  October  26, 
1853- 

!33  December  4,  1848 ;   Cong.  Globe,  xx,  i,  68. 

134  Douglas's  apparent  lack  of  genuine  interest  in  Nebraska  is  the 
more  surprising  in  view  of  the  fact  that  in  the  first  session  of  the  3  ad 
Congress  several  petitions  from  inhabitants  of  the  States  of  Illinois  and 
Indiana  for  the  organization  of  Nebraska  Territory  were  presented  to  the 
Senate,  some  of  them  by  Mr.  Douglas  himself,  and  referred  to  the  Com 
mittee  on  Territories.  —  Senate  Journal,  190,  330,  345,  478;  see  also 
note  103. 


THE   MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  99 

tain  no  reference  to  Nebraska  territorial  government, 
and  when  the  silence  is  finally  broken  it  is  not  by  any 
movement  on  the  part  of  the  Illinois  Senator  but 
again  by  a  Representative  from  the  State  of  Mis 
souri.  On  the  eleventh  of  December,  1851,  Hon.  Wil- 
lard  P.  Hall,  a  supporter  of  Atchison,  who  resided 
on  the  western  frontier  of  Missouri,  gave  notice  of  a 
bill  to  organize  the  Territory  of  Platte  which  in- 
eluded  the  region  later  embraced  by  the  terms  of  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill.135  Later  in  the  same  session,136 
Hon.  David  R.  Atchison,  Senator  from  Missouri, 
presented  to  the  Senate  the  resolutions  and  proceed 
ings  of  the  Parkville  meeting,  already  mentioned, 
urging  upon  Congress  the  early  organization  of  a 
territorial  government  in  Nebraska. 

Early  in  the  second  session  of  the  32d  Congress, 
which  met  in  December,  1852,  we  find  Mr.  Hall  of 
Missouri  again  introducing  substantially  the  bill  of 
the  year  previous  with  the  name  of  the  proposed 
Territory  changed  f  romJPlattjeJ^uNebraska.137  This 
bill,  as  we  have  seen,  passeH  trfe  House  early  in 
1853  and  failed  in  the  Senate  only  by  being  post 
poned  to  the  last  crowded  days  of  the  session.  Even 
before  this  bill  had  passed  the  House,  Senator  A.  C. 
Dodge  of  Iowa  had  introduced  in  the  Senate  a  res 
olution  actually  instructing  the  Committee  on  Terri 
tories  of  which  Mr.  Douglas  was  chairman,  "to  in- 

135  Cong.  Globe,  xxiv,  Pt.  i,  80.     This  notice  is  all  that  I  have  been 
able  to  discover  relating  to  the  legislative  history  of  this  bill.     No  action 
was  had  upon  it. 

136  July   7,    1852;    Cong.    Globe,   xxiv,   Pt.    ii,    1666.     Senate   Journal, 
ist  Sess.,  sad  Cong.,  509,  573. 

!37  December  13,  1852;    Cong.   Globe,  xxvi,  47.     fjjfttt  JiOWfer 


100  THE  REPEAL  OF 

quire  into  the  expediency  of  a  territorial  government 
for  the  country  west  of  Iowa  and  Missouri  and  east 
of  Utah,  commonly  called  Nebraska."  The  resolu 
tion,  after  consideration  by  unanimous  consent,  was 
agreed  to.138 

It  is  also  highly  significant  that  the  original  of 
the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  in  the  33d  Congress  was 
not  introduced  by  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on 
Territories,  who  only  nine  months  before  had  had  the 
assurance  to  declare  that  he  had  been  trying  for  eight 
long  years  to  get  such  a  measure  through  Congress. 
Senator  Dodge  of  Iowa  introduced  the  Nebraska  bill 
which  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  Douglas  finally  developed 
into  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act.139  In  the  House  a 
similar  Nebraska  bill  was  introduced  by  another 
Representative  from  Missouri,  Hon.  J.  G.  Miller.140 

These  facts  connected  with  the  origination  of 
Nebraska  territorial  bills  are  significant  because  they 
show,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  chief  interest  appear 
ing  in  Congress  relative  to  this  topic  between  Decem 
ber,  1848,  and  January,  1854,  is  not  displayed  by  the 
chairman  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Territories  or 
by  any  other  member  of  that  Committee ;  and,  in  the 
second  place,  all  the  congressional  interest  in  the 
subject  seems  to  come  from  the  two  States  of  Iowa14 
and  Missouri  where,  as  has  been  shown,  a  consid- 

^8  January  17,  1853;  Senate  Journal,  2d  Sess.,  sad  Cong.,  101. 

139  Cong.  Globe,  xxviii,  Pt.  i,  i,  44. 

140  Ibid.,  115,  127. 

141  Additional  evidence  of  Iowa's  interest  in  Nebraska  as  reflected  in 
the  Congressional  Globe  is  given  in  Chapter  VI. 


THE   MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  IOI 

erable  degree  of  local  interest  in  the  subject  had  been 
aroused  by  the  Pacific  railway  agitation.142 

This  local  interest  peculiar  to  Missouri  is  also 
reflected  in  the  debates  on  the  Nebraska  bills  in  the 
32d  and  33d  Congresses.  "Perhaps,"  said  Mr.  Atch- 
ison  in  March,  1853,  "there  is  not  a  State  in  the 
Union  more  deeply  interested  in  this  question  than 
the  State  of  Missouri."143 

"If  not  the  largest,"  he  continued,  "I  will  say  the  best 
portion  of  that  territory,  perhaps  the  only  portion  of  it  that  in 
half  a  century  will  become  a  State,  lies  immediately  west  of  the 
State  of  Missouri.  It  is  only  a  question  of  time  whether  we  will 
organize  the  territory  at  this  session  of  Congress,  or  whether  we 
will  do  it  at  the  next  session " 

During  the  debate  upon  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill,  Hon.  J.  W.  Lindley,  a  Representative  from  Mis 
souri,  said:144 

'..../  regard  it  as  a  matter  of  the  utmost  importance 
to  the  people  of  Missouri  that  these  Territories  should  be  organized 
at  the  earliest  possible  moment.  An  organization  must  be  had 
before  they  can  be  peopled,  and  the  settlement  of  these  territories 
must  precede  that  great  enterprise  of  the  age,  the  Pacific  railroad. 
The  Hannibal  and  St.  Joseph  road  is  now  in  process  of  construc 
tion,  and  the  right  of  way  is  asked  to  extend  it  west  of  Missouri. 
In  my  opinion  the  Pacific  road  must  connect  with  this  road  at 
its  western  terminus,  and  thus,  through  the  very  heart  of  my 
district  —  through  the  rich  agricultural  counties  of  Livingston, 
Linn,  Macon,  and  Shelby  —  will  pass  the  great  national  thorough- 

!42One  is  therefore  justified  in  dismissing  Senator  Douglas's  state 
ment  as  simply  an  illustration  of  the  common  disposition  among  politicians 
to  "claim  everything"  in  sight. 

143  Cong.  Globe,  xxvi,  mi  ff.     Unless  something  has  been  overlooked 
unintentionally,  the   statements   in   Congress  by  members   from   the   States 
of  Iowa  and  Missouri  are  the  only  ones  tending  to  establish  the  existence 
of  a  strong  local  interest  in  the  creation  of  Nebraska  Territory. 

144  Cong.   Globe,  xxxi,   797.    The   italics   are   mine. 


102  THE  REPEAL  OF 

fare  uniting  the  Atlantic  with  the  Pacific,  connecting  Europe  with 
India." 

Returning  now  to  the  attitude  of  Missouri  poli 
ticians  toward  the  Nebraska  territorial  movement 
which  Colonel  Benton  and  the  Wyandotts  resusci 
tated  in  1852-53,  we  have  seen  that  Senator  Atchi- 
son,  in  conversation  with  Mr.  Guthrie,  had  been  out 
spoken  in  his  opposition  to  the  territorial  scheme, 
avowedly  because  of  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the 
proposed  Territory.  But  during  the  winter  of  1852- 
53  Senator  Atchison's  position  underwent  a  change. 
He  came  to  a  realization  of  the  fact  that  the  people  of 
western  Missouri  were  strongly  in  favor  of  the  cre 
ation  of  the  new  Territory.  There  was  nothing  for 
him  to  do,  therefore,  as  a  practical  politician,  but  to 
accede  to  the  wishes  of  his  constituents,  and  support 
the  Nebraska  bill,  notwithstanding  his  previous  op 
position.  Accordingly  when  the  bill  came  up  in  the 
Senate  in  March,  1853,  he  made  the  following  frank 
explanation  of  his  position: 

'  .  .  .  .  For  my  own  part  I  acknowledge  now,  as  the 
Senator  from  Illinois  well  knows,  when  I  came  to  this  city,  at 
the  beginning  of  the  last  session,  I  was  perhaps  as  much  opposed 
to  the  proposition  as  the  Senator  from  Texas  [Rusk]  now  is: 

The  Senator  from  Iowa  knows  it 145  But,  sir,  I  have 

upon  reflection  and  investigation  in  my  own  mind  and  from  the 
opinion  of  others,  my  constituents  whose  opinions  I  am  bound  to 
respect,  come  to  the  conclusion  that  now  is  the  time  for  the 
organization  of  this  territory 

"[One]  reason  that  I  will  assign  why  I  opposed  this  measure, 
and  why  I  still  think  it  objectionable  in  a  local  point  of  view,  so 


145  Cong.  Globe,  xxvi,  mi  ff.  From  the  allusions  to  Douglas  and  to 
Dodge  of  Iowa,  it  would  seem  as  if  the  subject  of  Nebraska  had  at  least 
been  discussed  in  the  session  of  1851-52. 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  103 

far  as  my  immediate  constituents,  the  people  of  western  Missouri 
are  concerned,  as  well  as  those  of  Iowa  and  Arkansas  are  con 
cerned,  is,  if  you  organize  the  territory  of  Nebraska  and  ex 
tinguish  the  Indian  title,  and  let  in  the  white  population  upon 
that  territory,  it  extends  our  frontiers  from  seven  hundred  to  one 
thousand  miles  west,  and  we  raise  up  competition  with  what  we 
now  have.  The  states  of  Iowa  and  Missouri  now  have  the  best 
market  for  all  their  products.  We  are  an  agricultural  people, 
and  for  all  the  products  of  agriculture  we  have  now  as  good  a 
market  as  any  people  of  the  United  States,  and  it  grows  out  of 
the  frontier  trade;  food  for  men,  food  for  oxen,  food  for  mules, 
food  for  everything,  which  we  produce  for  California,  Oregon 
and  New  Mexico.  But  if  we  extend  this  frontier  from  year  to 
year  competition  will  increase,  and  we  will  be  compelled  to  turn 
our  agricultural  products  down  the  Missouri  and  the  Mississippi 

rivers,  to  the  east  instead  of  to  the  west The  pressure  of 

population  from  the  older  states  and  from  Europe  has  been  such 
that  they  roll  up  against  the  frontier,  and  the  most  populous 
counties  in  the  State  of  Missouri  are  upon  the  western  boundary 
of  that  State.  In  less  than  three  years  from  this  time,  the  most 
populous  counties  of  Iowa  will  be  upon  the  western  border;  and 
it  will  be  the  same  case,  if  it  is  not  now,  with  the  State  of  Ar 
kansas And  why  is  it  so  ?  Why,  sir,  the  tide  of  emigration 

rolls  on  until  it  is  stopped  by  the  intercourse  laws.  Such  has 
been  the  case  in  our  State  for  the  last  ten  years,  and  I  know  that 
the  tide  of  population  has  been  rolling  back  upon  the  interior  of 
the  State.  Now,  sir,  I  know  very  well  that  in  a  very  few  years, 
if  it  is  not  now  doing  it,  the  tide  of  population,  in  defiance  of  this 
government,  will  pass  the  frontier  and  take  possession  of  every 
habitable  spot  in  Nebraska  territory;  you  cannot  keep  them  out. 
There  is  a  large  portion  of  our  population  who  are  ready  and 
anxious  to  abandon  their  homes  to  go  into  this  Territory.  You 
cannot  restrain  them  much  longer "146 

After  saying  that  a  second  reason  for  his  opposi 
tion  to  the  bill  was  that  "the  Indian  title  in  that  Ter- 


146  The  italics  are  mine. 


104  THE  REPEAL  OF 

ritory  had  not  been  extinguished,  or  at  least  a  very 
small  portion  of  it,"  Senator  Atchison  went  on  to  dis 
cuss  the  question  of  slavery  and  the  Missouri  Com 
promise  in  language  of  no  little  significance: 

"It  was  my  opinion  at  that  time  [the  opening  of  the  session] 
—  and  I  am  not  now  very  clear  on  that  subject  —  that  the  law 
of  Congress,  when  the  State  of  Missouri  was  admitted  into  the 
Union,  excluding  slavery  from  the  territory  of  Louisiana  north 
of  36°  30',  would  be  enforced  in  that  Territory  unless  it  was 
specially  rescinded;  and,  whether  that  law  was  in  accordance 
with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  or  not,  it  would  do 
its  work,  and  that  work  would  be  to  preclude  slaveholders  from 
going  into  that  Territory.  But  when  I  came  to  look  into  that 
question,  I  found  that  there  was  no  prospect,  no  hope  of  a  repeal 
of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  excluding  slavery  from  that  Terri 
tory.  Now,  sir,  I  am  free  to  admit  that  at  this  moment,  at  this 
hour,  and  for  all  time  to  come,  I  should  oppose  the  organization 
or  the  settlement  of  that  Territory  unless  my  constituents  and  the 
constituents  of  the  whole  South,  of  the  slave  States  of  the  Union, 
could  go  into  it  upon  the  same  footing,  with  equal  rights  and  equal 
privileges,  carrying  that  species  of  property  with  them  as  other 
people  of  this  Union.  Yes,  sir,  I  acknowledge  that  that  would 
have  governed  me,  but  I  have  no  hope  that  the  restriction  will 
ever  be  repealed. 

"I  have  always  been  of  opinion  that  the  first  great  error  com 
mitted  in  the  political  history  of  this  country  was  the  Ordinance 
of  1787,  rendering  the  Northwest  Territory  free  territory.  The 
next  great  error  was  the  Missouri  Compromise.  But  they  are 
both  irremediable.  There  is  no  remedy  for  them.  We  must 
submit  to  them.  I  am  prepared  to  do  it.  It  is  evident  that  the 
Missouri  Compromise  cannot  be  repealed.  So  far  as  that  question 
is  concerned,  we  might  as  well  agree  to  the  admission  of  this 
territory  now  as  next  year,  or  five  or  ten  years  hence."  147 


147  Senator  Atchison  then  went  on  to  give  the  additional  reason  for 


THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  105 

Considerable  importance  attaches  to  the  por 
tion  of  Mr.  Atchison's  explanation  just  quoted. 
First,  it  indicates  clearly  that  prior  to  March,  1853, 
the  possibility  of  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compro 
mise  had  been  seriously  considered  by  him,  and  it 
is  fair  to  infer  that  not  a  few  others  had  also  "come 
to  look  into  that  question."  Although  the  statement 
is  very  guarded  and  incidental,  nevertheless,  consid 
ering  the  political  situation  in  Missouri  and  the  plans 
of  Benton's  enemies,  the  phrase  is  not  without  sig 
nificance.148  The  leaders  of  the  aggressive  slavery 

his  opposition,  based  upon  economic  considerations,  which  has  been  given 
in  an  earlier  chapter.  —  Cong.  Globe,  xxvi,  mi  if. 

Speaking  of  the  attitude  of  the  pro-slavery  radicals  in  Missouri  to 
ward  the  opening  of  Nebraska  Territory,  Judge  Price  said: 

"We  were  opposed  to  the  opening  of  any  part  of  the  territory  of  Old 
Missouri  Territory  to  settlement,  and  for  many  reasons.  It  had  been  set 
aside  as  the  Indian  Country.  The  Government  had  removed  the  Eastern 
Indian  tribes  to  that  country  and  covenanted  with  them  that  they  should 
never  be  molested  in  their  new  home.  And  this  was  done  with  a  purpose, 
for  if  slavery  could  not  go  there  we  wanted  no  one  there  except  the 
Indians.  And  there  was  no  necessity  for  such  settlement;  millions  of  acres 
of  better  land  were  open  to  settlement  in  Missouri,  Arkansas,  Louisiana, 
Mississippi,  Alabama,  and  Texas. 

"To  establish  Territories  in  that  country  would,  we  knew,  bring  up 
the  subject  of  slavery,  and  its  admission  or  exclusion.  We  were  excluded 
by  the  Compromise,  but  Southern  men  hoped  in  some  way  to  bring  about 
the  repeal  of  that  measure  in  some  peaceful  manner.  Their  most  cher 
ished  hope  for  many  years  was  to  look  upon  the  old  manner  of  retaining 
the  influence  of  Slave-State  and  Free-State  at  a  balance  in  the  Union  by 
the  admission  of  one  slave  State  and  one  free  State  when  the  time  for 
the  admission  of  any  part  of  that  domain  was  demanded  by  the  economic 
conditions  of  the  country.  In  the  meantime  we  hoped  to  make  four  States 
of  Texas,  and  to  have  slavery  established  in  the  country  obtained  from 
Spain  and  Mexico."  Reported  by  Mr.  Connelley.  See  also  New  York 
Tribune,  editorial,  November  26,  1853 ;  and  the  Independent,  September 
25,  1856. 

148The  significance  of  this  is  also  brought  out  in  an  editorial  in  the 
New  York  Tribune,  entitled,  "Nebraska,"  November  12,  1853. 


106  THE  REPEAL  OF 

extension  party  clearly  did  not  feel  that  the  time  was 
ripe  for  the  commencement  of  the  struggle  in  Con 
gress  for  the  Repeal.  In  the  second  place,  the  re 
marks  of  Senator  Atchison  evince,  beyond  the  pos 
sibility  of  mistake,  what  would  be  his  attitude  upon 
the  question  of  Repeal  if  such  a  movement  appeared 
feasible.  It  is  only  the  utter  hopelessness  of  accom 
plishing  the  Repeal  that  induced  him  to  support  this 
Nebraska  bill  with  the  retention  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise  restriction.  Should  circumstances  ever 
arise  which  seemed  to  hold  out  the  faintest  hope  of 
success,  he  most  assuredly  would  be  found  in  active 
support  of  the  Repeal :  a  fortiori,  would  he  champion 
the  Repeal  if  upon  it  his  own  political  self-preserva 
tion  seemed  to  depend.  And  the  course  of  Benton 
in  Missouri  presently  forced  him  into  that  position. 

With  the  adjournment  of  Congress  in  March, 
1853,  we  are  brought  to  the  very  threshold  of  the 
campaign  which  makes  the  year  1853  memorable 
both  in  state  and  national  history.  All  the  various 
elements,  factors  and  issues  which  were  to  play  im 
portant  parts  in  the  final  struggle  over  the  senatorial 
succession  in  Missouri  have  now  been  introduced. 

We  have  seen  the  original  impulse  for  the  or 
ganization  of  Nebraska  Territory  arising  from  stra 
tegic  or  military  considerations  and  quickly  dying 
out.  Almost  simultaneously  with  the  beginning  of 
the  Missouri  dissensions  an  apparently  isolated  re 
vival  of  interest  in  Nebraska  appeared  in  that  State. 
Another  revival  followed  closely  upon  Colonel  Ben- 
ton's  retirement  from  the  Senate  and  election  to  the 
House.  This  revival  occurred  contemporaneously 


THE   MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  107 

in  two  different  quarters,  in  such  proximity  geo 
graphically  and  temporally  as  to  suggest  cooperation 
or  collusion.  These  movements  appear  to  have  con 
verged  and  united  at  Washington  in  December,  1852, 
and  to  have  been  instrumental  in  effecting  the  pas 
sage  of  Mr.  Hall's  Nebraska  bill  by  the  House.149 
Although  this  bill  failed  in  the  Senate,  Congress 
made  an  appropriation  for  the  extinguishment  of 
Indian  titles  in  Nebraska  as  a  preliminary  to  the 
early  establishment  of  a  territorial  government.  By 
the  close  of  the  year  1852  the  Missouri  public  were 
apprised  by  Colonel  Benton  of  the  intimate  connec 
tion  between  the  creation  of  the  new  Territory  and 
the  construction  of  the  Pacific  railroad.  About  the 
time  of  the  earlier  revival  of  interest  in  Nebraska 
and  when  the  Missouri  dissensions  were  becoming 
acute  the  Missouri  Legislature  passed  a  formal  en 
dorsement  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  Apparent 
ly  as  a  rejoinder  to  this,  came  the  passage  of  the  Jack 
son  Resolutions  followed  by  the  bitter  schism  in  the 
Democracy  and  a  political  upheaval  throughout  the 
State.  It  is  possible  to  regard  the  Jackson  Resolu 
tions  as  disguising  a  purpose  or  design,  at  least  a  dis 
position,  to  abrogate  the  Missouri  Compromise  at 
some  indefinite  future  time,  or  at  any  rate,  to  justify 
its  abrogation.  Back  of  all  the  warring  of  factions 

149  From  the  evidence  at  hand  it  is  impossible  to  determine  how  much 
credit  is  due  respectively  to  the  Missouri  source  and  to  the  Nebraska  source. 
In  his  speech  of  May  16,  1854,  Hon.  S.  Mayall,  a  Representative  from 
Maine,  made  the  following  reference  to  the  efforts  of  Guthrie  during  the 
winter  of  1852-53:  "In  October,  1852,  the  people  of  Nebraska  elected  a 
delegate  who  came  to  the  capital,  and  as  all  know  who  were  members 
of  the  last  Congress,  urged  with  great  zeal  the  organization  of  a  govern 
ment  for  that  Territory."  —  Cong.  Globe,  xxxi,  715. 


Io8  THE  REPEAL  OF 

and  bandying  of  epithets  lay  the  hope  cherished  by 
Mr.  Calhoun's  disciples  of  repealing  the  Missouri 
Compromise  at  the  earliest  opportune  moment. 
Naturally,  however,  they  wished  to  select  that  mo 
ment  themselves,  and  did  not  care  to  have  the  issue 
forced  upon  them  before  they  were  ready.  The 
question  of  slavery  in  the  proposed  Territory,  we 
have  seen  making  its  first  public  appearance  in  the 
winter  of  1852-53,  at  which  time  the  two  Missouri 
Senators,  and  especially  Mr.  Atchison,  opposed  the 
creation  of  the  new  territorial  government.  The 
latter  opposed  it  avowedly  because  the  slaveholders 
of  Missouri  would  be  prevented  by  the  Compromise 
prohibition  from  taking  their  slave  property  into  the 
new  Territory. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  anticipate,  from  what  has 
preceded,  the  attitude  which  Benton  and  Atchison 
would  probably  assume  in  case  an  issue  arose  which 
involved  the  retention  or  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise  in  a  new  Territory  west  of  Missouri. 
From  the  letter  of  Guthrie,  who  was  in  a  position  to 
know,  and  from  the  Cape  Girardeau  county  speech 
it  was  perfectly  clear  that  Benton  favored  the  new 
territorial  project.  That  he  would  oppose  any  at 
tempt  to  repeal  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  be 
yond  question.  The  power  of  Congress  under  the 
Constitution  to  exclude  slavery  from  the  Territories, 
he  staunchly  upheld.  Mr.  Atchison,  on  the  other 
hand,  vigorously  denied  that  Congress  had  such 
power. 


CHAPTER  IV 

The  Missouri  Senatorial  Campaign  of  1853— Controversy  °ver 
the  Legality  of  "Immediate"  Settlement  in  Nebraska-Atchison 
is  Forced  to  Champion  the  Repeal. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  enter  upon  the  stirring 
events  of  the  summer  and  autumn  of  1853,  and  to 
see  how  circumstances  combined  to  produce  condi 
tions  out  of  which  emerged  the  suggestion  for  the  re 
peal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  in  connection  with 
the  Nebraska  territorial  bill  in  1854. 

Of  what  had  been  taking  place  in  Missouri  dur 
ing  the  winter  of  1852-53  when  both  the  State  Legis 
lature  and  Congress  were  in  session,  we  have  almost 
no  detailed  information.  The  winter  had  scarcely 
passed  when  hostilities  between  the  old  factions  were 
vigorously  renewed. 

Although  the  Legislature  which  would  choose 
Senator  Atchison's  successor  would  not  be  elected  un 
til  the  summer  of  1854,  the  spring  of  1853  was  none 
too  early  to  commence  the  life  and  death  struggle  be 
tween  the  factions  which  for  eight  years  had  been 
contending  for  the  supremacy.  Shortly  before  the 
adjournment  of  the  Legislature  on  the  twenty-fourth 
of  February,  1853,  Colonel  Benton  announced  that 
he  would  be  "in  the  field  for  reelection  to  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States  at  the  next  regular  session"  of 


1 10  THE  REPEAL  OF 

the  General  Assembly.150  Not  long  after  this,151  the 
Jefferson  Inquirer  sounded  the  clarion  call  to  battle 
in  an  editorial  entitled,  "A  WORD  TO  THE  DEMO 
CRATS,"  in  which  all  "sound"  Democrats  were  urged 
to  awake  and  prepare  for  the  contest  to  replace  Ben- 
ton  in  the  Senate.  The  challenge  was  soon  formally 
accepted  by  Senator  Atchison  who  joined  issue  in  no 
equivocal  terms:  "I  will  cheerfully  surrender  my 
seat  in  the  United  States  Senate  to  any  honest  and 
sound  Democrat.  But  I  can  never  willingly  surren 
der  it  to  Colonel  Benton."  152 

There  were  those  who  scented  the  impending 
battle  from  afar.  "Mr.  Benton  will  take  a  position 
of  antagonism  to  the  Missouri  division  gf  the  Admin 
istration  party,"  wrote  the  Washington  Correspond 
ent  of  the  New  York  Courier.153 

"He  is  going  home  to  engage  in  a  contest  against  organiza 
tions,  against  the  State  convention,  caucuses,  154  and  other  ma 
chinery  by  which  the  leaders  there  are  seeking  to  protect  themselves 
against  the  force  of  his  individual  will,  eloquence  and  energy. 
Mr.  Benton  is  resolved  to  procure  the  reversal  of  that  decision 
against  his  famous  'Appeal'  in  1851  which  sent  Mr.  Geyer  to  the 
Senate  in  his  place.  To  this  end  he  means  to  enter  upon  a  can 
vass  of  the  State  for  the  election  of  a  majority  of  unpledged  and 
independent  Democratic  candidates  to  the  Legislature,  in  order 
to  oust  Mr.  Atchison  from  the  Senate  and  get  himself  in.  In  this 

ISO  This  appears  from  a  portion  of  a  letter  of  Colonel  Benton  quoted 
in  an  address  of  certain  Democratic  members  of  the  Legislature  to  their 
constituents.  See  National  Intelligencer,  March  10,  1853. 

!51  April  9,  1853. 

*52  Missouri  Republican,  June  22,  1853. 

!53  Quoted  in  the  Missouri  Sentinel,  March  24,  1853. 

!S4  Benton's  "hatred  of  dictation  was  such  that  he  would  never  attend 
a  caucus  of  any  kind."  —  Rogers's  Benton,  318. 


THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  III 

work  he  well  knows  that  he  must  expect  the  opposition  and  not 
the  aid  of  the  Administration."  15S 

With  surprising  accuracy,  the  Correspondent 
then  added  this  prediction  of  the  outcome: 

"But  with  all  his  resources  and  his  indomitable  resolution  and 
his  strongly  versatile  and  active  mind,  the  old  Senator  will  be 
beaten  and  will  die  disappointed  and  disconsolate.  Party  discipline 
will  overcome  even  such  as  he." 

"There  can  be  no  mistaking  the  signs  of  the 
times,"  began  an  editorial  forecast  and  review  of  the 
press  alignment  a  few  weeks  later.156 

"A  fiercer  war  is  about  to  be  waged  between  the  Benton 
and  Democratic  factions  in  this  State  than  has  ever  been  known. 
The  newspapers  as  well  as  the  politicians  have  taken  sides  and  all 
seem  ready  for  the  fray.  Colonel  Benton,  so  far  as  we  have 
observed,  has  only  two  papers  arrayed  in  his  support,  the  St.  Louis 
Democrat  and  the  Jefferson  Inquirer.  They  are  to  be  reenforced 
by  the  Gazette  at  St.  Joseph  under  a  newr  editor  (L.  J.  Eaton). 
On  the  other  side  there  is  the  Examiner  at  Jefferson  City,  the 
Chronicle  at  Lexington,  the  Northeastern  Reporter  at  Canton,  the 
Banner  at  Glasgow,  the  Chronicle  at  Bloomington,  the  Hannibal 

Courier,  we  believe,  and  one  of  the  papers  at  Springfield 

It  is  going  to  be  a  great  fight,  and  whatever  party  triumphs  a 
goodly  number  will  be  left  dead  on  the  field." 


155  This  break  with  the  Administration  seems  to  have  occurred  some 
time  in  the  summer  of  1853.     The  immediate  occasion,  in  brief,  seems  to 
have    been   the    ignoring   of   the    Benton    faction    and    the    recognition    of 
Atchison,   in  the   distribution  of   Federal   patronage,   especially   in  the   ap 
pointment  of   an   anti-Bentonite    as   postmaster    at   St.   Louis.     So   incensed 
was  Benton  at  this,  that  he  immediately  made  arrangements  for  the  trans 
mission  and  delivery  of  all  his  correspondence  by  express,  and  gave  public 
notice  of  this  arrangement  in  the  leading  newspapers  in  the  State.     See 
New  York  Tribune,  August  30,  1853. 

156  The  Missouri  Republican,  April  15,  1853.     The  Republican  was  a 
Whig  organ.     During  the  early  part  of  the  campaign  of  1853  it  maintained 
a  neutral  position  very  well ;  but  as  the  campaign  waxed  hotter,  it  became 
more  antagonistic  toward  Benton,  although  at  all  times  it  was  free  from 
the  passion  and  partisanship  of  its  Democratic  contemporaries. 


112  THE  REPEAL  OF 

Apparently  the  months  of  March  and  April, 
1853,  were  passed  by  the  politicians  in  quietly  mak 
ing  their  plans  and  perfecting  their  machines.  The 
"Antis,"  if  one  may  believe  the  Jefferson  Inquirer, 
were  "playing  a  desperate  game  to  beat  Colonel  Ben- 
ton  for  the  Senate,"  and  were  "manifesting  a  zeal 
worthy  of  a  better  cause,"  leaving  "no  means  untried 
for  accomplishing  their  purposes."  157  It  was  not 
until  May,  when  Colonel  Benton  had  returned  to 
Missouri,  that  the  letter-writing  and  speech-making 
began  in  earnest. 

Eagerly  did  the  Bentonites  seize  upon  the  fact 
that  David  R.  Atchison,  one  of  the  most  pronounced 
opponents  of  the  exclusion  of  slavery  from  the  Ter 
ritories,  after  strenuously  opposing  the  Nebraska  bill, 
had,  nevertheless,  come  around  finally  to  its  support. 
Upon  it  they  predicated  repeated  and  elaborate 
charges  of  the  grossest  inconsistency  and  utmost  un 
reliability.  The  Jefferson  Inquirer,  the  staunchest 
and  most  influential  of  the  Benton  newspapers,  in  an 
editorial  entitled,  "ATCHISON  VS.  ATCHISON,"  re 
minded  its  readers  of  the  emphatic  language  which 
Atchison  had  used  to  Guthrie  upon  the  subject,  and 
proceeded  to  excoriate  Mr.  Atchison  in  the  follow 
ing  terms:  158 

"The  dead  duck,  having  caved  in  and  renigged  upon  the 
fundamental  position  of  anti-Bentonism,  to  wit,  that  Congress  has 
no  power  to  legislate  upon  slavery  in  the  territories,  and  having 
by  his  death-bed  and  post-mortem  adhesion  to  the  Nebraska  terri 
torial  bill  explicitly  acknowledged  such  power  in  Congress,  and 
actually  sanctioned  its  abolition  in  all  the  upper  Louisiana  territory 


157  Issue  of  April  27,  1853. 
!58  Issue  of  May  21,  1853. 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  113 

north  of  36°  30',  ft  becomes  useful  to  look  into  some  of  his 
previous  pledges  on  the  subject  to  see  that  either  now  in  admitting 
the  power,  or  formerly  in  denying  it,  he  has  been  a  hypocrite  and 
double-dealer,  either  false  to  the  people  of  Missouri  to  whom  he 
owes  respect  and  gratitude,  or  false  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  which  he  is  under  oath  to  support. 

"It  will  be  remembered  that  in  1849  Mr.  Atchison  published 
a  letter  on  the  subject  of  the  nullification  resolutions,  the  funda 
mental  one  of  which  and  which  was  the  basis  of  all  the  rest, 
denied  the  same  power  to  Congress  and  made  its  exercise  a  cause 
of  dissolution  of  the  Union.  In  that  letter  thus  published  there 
occurs  among  many  similar  passages  the  following: 

"  'Congress  can  no  more  constitutionally  prohibit  the  slave 
holder  from  Missouri  from  settling  in  the  Territories  of  the 
United  States  with  his  slaves,  than  the  Rhode  Islander  with  his 
machinery,  or  the  Methodist,  Presbyterian,  Turk  or  Mormon 
with  his  religion.  It  is  in  vain  to  hope  that  this  question  [con 
cerning  the  power  of  Congress  to  legislate  upon  slavery  in  the 
Territories]  can  be  compromised  or  in  any  way  satisfactorily  set 
tled  without  united  and  determined  resistance.  In  conclusion, 
fellow  citizens,  I  will  say  that  as  Senator  I  will  oppose  all  legis 
lation  of  Congress  which  has  for  its  object  an  interference  with 
the  domestic  institutions,  or  which  will  prevent  any  citizen  of  a 
slave  State  from  emigrating  to  the  Territories  of  the  United 
States  with  his  slaves.'  159 

"The  way  he  talked  and  swore  at  the  same  time  was  awful 
to  hear.  A  favorite  form  of  swearing  with  him  then  was  this: 
'I  would  see  the  United  States  split  into  as  many  parts  as  there 
are  counties  in  the  Union  before  I  would  see  the  Wilmot  Proviso 
passed,  or  any  act  done  by  Congress,  which  would  sanction  the 
expulsion  of  slavery  from  any  territory  or  prevent  our  southern 
brethren  from  going  with  their  slaves  to  any  land  gained  by  the 
common  blood  and  treasure.' 

"At  many  times  he  swore  he  would  be  'tarred  and  feathered/ 
'would  be  hanged  and  quartered,'  'would  be  torn  to  pieces  by  wild 
horses  hitched  to  each  arm  and  leg,'  'that  he  would  resign  and 


159  The  italics  are  mine. 


114  THE  REPEAL  OF 

quit  the  State/  before  he  would  ever  submit  to  such  a  violation  of 
the  Constitution,  and  such  an  'insult'  to  the  South,  as  the  exclusion 
of  slavery  from  any  Territory  of  the  United  States  would  be. 

"In  that  way  he  continued  swearing  for  about  the  space  of 
three  years  and  nine  months,  viz.,  from  the  spring  of  1849  to  the 
winter  of  1852-53,  at  which  latter  time  he  still  swore  thus  to 
Mr.  Abelard  Guthrie  of  Nebraska:  'I  had  rather  see  the  wrhole 
Territory  sunk  in  hell,  than  to  see  it  organized  as  free  territory!' 

"Thus  the  brave  Davy  Atchison  spoke  and  swore  for  the 
space  of  near  four  years,  and  until  after  the  Nebraska  bill,  despite 
the  traitorous  and  clandestine  opposition  of  Phelps  and  Atchison, 
and  the  cold  and  silent  opposition  of  Geyer,  had  passed  the  House 
of  Representatives  and  had  been  favorably  reported  by  the  Com 
mittee  of  the  Senate  and  until  after  it  had  been  killed  by  the 
criminal  delay  to  call  it  up;  after  all  that  and  without  regard  to 
his  four  years  swearing,  and  for  the  purpose  of  deceiving  his  con 
stituents,  he  'renigged,'  'caved-in,'  jumped  the  fence,  abandoned 
all  his  principles  in  relation  to  the  powers  of  Congress  in  abolishing 
it  in  as  much  territory  as  would  make  fourteen  large  States.  .  .  ." 

The  two  subjects  upon  which  public  interest 
focused  in  the  campaign  of  1853  were  the  railroad 
to  the  Pacific  and  the  early  organization  of  Nebraska 
Territory  involving  the  question  of  slavery.  Over 
these  topics  arose  the  main  issues  of  that  memorable 
campaign.  "Slavery  Whigs  and  Slavery  Democrats 
were  on  one  side;  those  favoring  the  continuation  of 
the  Compromise  being  on  the  other,  almost  to  the 
disregard  of  party  lines,  especially  toward  the  close 
of  the  contest."  16° 


160  Judge  Price,  as  reported  by  Mr.  Connelley.  Judged  by  his  re 
marks  in  the  Senate,  March  3,  1853,  it  seems  probable  that  Senator  Atchi 
son  had  not  been  kept  fully  informed  of  the  growth  of  a  strong  sentiment 
in  the  western  part  of  the  State  favorable  to  the  immediate  repeal  of  the 
Compromise  which  apparently  had  developed  rapidly  after  he  had  left  the 
State  in  the  preceding  November.  At  any  rate  that  sentiment  did  not 
appear  to  him  in  March  to  be  of  strength  sufficient  to  warrant  his  advocat 
ing  the  Repeal  in  Congress. 


THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  115 

Benton  soon  visited  the  western  counties  which 
formed  Atchison's  political  "stamping  ground"161 
and  found  the  inhabitants  of  that  section  of  the  State 
feverish  to  get  over  the  river  into  the  rich  lands  of 
Nebraska.162  In  their  eagerness  he  perceived  the 
opportunity  of  making  much-needed  political  capital 
for  himself,  at  the  expense  of  his  rival.  By  advo 
cating  the  immediate  occupation  of  Nebraska  by 
white  people  and  by  pledging  himself  to  champion 
the  territorial  measure  before  the  next  Congress,  he 
would  stand  an  excellent  chance  of  transferring  from 
Atchison  to  himself  the  political  allegiance  of  the 
populous  frontier  counties. 

Thus  to  carry  the  war  boldly  into  Africa  ap 
pealed  with  irresistible  force  to  a  politician  of  Ben- 
ton's  extraordinary  aggressiveness.  It  mattered  little 
that  during  his  thirty  years  as  Senator  he  had  never 
exhibited  any  active  interest  in  opening  Nebraska 
to  settlement.  It  was  much  more  to  his  present  pur 
pose  to  make  it  appear  that  Atchison,  although  for 
some  years  chairman  of  the  Senate  Committee  on 
Indian  Affairs,  had  totally  neglected  the  interests  of 
his  immediate  constituents  in  paying  no  attention  to 
the  treaties  by  which  the  desirable  lands  in  Nebraska 
had  been  assigned  to  the  Indians,  with  a  view  to  the 
possible  opening  of  those  lands  to  the  occupation  of 


!61  Atchison  resided  in  Platte  City  from  1841  to  1856;  Paxton's  Annals, 
833- 

162  Hemp-raising  by  slave  labor  was  becoming  an  important  industry 
in  western  Missouri,  and  it  was  known  to  the  people  of  that  region  that 
lands  equally  good  for  hemp-raising  lay  in  adjacent  parts  of  Nebraska. — 
Paxton's  Annals,  63  ff;  Missouri  Republican,  June  23,  1854;  John  A. 
Parker's  What  Led  to  the  War  (see  Appendix  D)  ;  the  Independent, 
September  25,  1856. 


Il6  THE  REPEAL  OF 

Missourians.  Every  one  knew  that  Atchison  had 
been  strongly  opposed  to  the  Nebraska  bill  in  the  ses 
sion  of  Congress  just  ended,  and  only  with  the  utmost 
reluctance  had  finally  brought  himself  to  its  support. 
With  almost  equal  ease  it  could  be  proved  that  he 
had  made  no  effectual  attempt  so  to  construe  existing 
Indian  treaties  and  Acts  of  Congress  as  to  authorize 
the  immediate  occupation  of  Nebraska  lands  by 
white  people.  Mr.  Atchison  might  thus  be  placed 
under  the  initial  disadvantage  of  having  to  act  on  the 
defensive.  Benton  on  the  other  hand  could  boldly 
assert  that  as  long  as  Atchison  remained  in  the  Senate 
and  Benton  remained  out  of  it,  there  was  no  prospect 
of  the  early  opening  of  Nebraska  to  settlement. 

Colonel  Benton's  first  move  in  the  execution  of 
this  plan  of  campaign  appeared  in  May,  1853.  Some 
of  his  Democratic  friends  among  the  citizens  of  Cole 
county  had  invited  him  to  speak  to  them  upon  the 
subject  of  "the  great  road  to  the  Pacific."  In  ac 
cepting  their  invitation  163  he  availed  himself  of  the 
opportunity  to  announce  a  new  and  startling  proposi 
tion  concerning  the  right  of  white  people  to  settle  in 
Nebraska  even  before  the  establishment  of  a  terri 
torial  government: 

"Gentlemen:  When  I  return  to  Missouri  I  shall  do  myself 
the  pleasure  to  comply  with  your  invitation  and  speak  to  you  on 
the  subject  which  you  mention,  that  of  the  great  road  to  the 

Pacific But  my  design  in  this  answer  to  your  letter  is  to 

speak  to  a  practical  point,  and  to  remove  some  errors  in  relation 
to  Indian  titles  on  the  line  of  the  road  west  of  Missouri  and  which 
were  not  cleared  up  in  the  debates  on  the  Nebraska  bill  at  the 
last  session  of  Congress.  It  seemed  to  be  taken  for  granted  that 

163  Dated  May  3,  1853  ;  in  the  Jefferson  Inquirer,  June  6,  1853. 


THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  117 

the  whole  country  out  to  the  Rocky  Mountains  was  covered  by 
Indian  titles.  Not  so  the  fact,  only  a  small  part  of  it :  164  the 
case  is  this.  Near  thirty  years  ago  the  United  States  extinguished 
the  Indian  titles  to  all  this  country,  Indians  retaining  small  reser 
vations  and  the  rest  being  intended  for  emigrating  tribes,  of  which 
only  a  small  part  (directly  west  of  Missouri)  had  been  allotted 
to  them.  The  Pawnees  relinquished  all  their  title  south  of  the 
Great  Platte,  and  this  went  up  to  the  Rocky  Mountains,  they 
taking  a  reservation  on  the  north  side  of  the  river.  The  Kansas 
relinquished  all  as  far  as  they  claimed  to  the  head  of  the  Kansas 
river,  and  to  the  division  ground  between  the  Kansas  and  Arkansas 
rivers.  The  Osages  ceded  all  the  country  on  both  sides  of  the 
Arkansas  and  out  to  Red  river.  Out  of  this  cession  the  Kansas 
Indians  received  a  strip  thirty  miles  wide  on  the  Kansas  river, 
running  above  the  junction  of  the  Republican  and  Smoky  Hill 
forks,  but  including  very  little  of  these  forks;  and  the  Osages 
reserved  a  parallelogram  on  the  Arkansas  nearly  opposite  the 
southwest  corner  of  the  State.  The  Shawnees  and  Delawares  had 
strips  assigned  them  adjoining  the  Kansas  reservation  on  the  north 
and  south,  and  half  a  dozen  fragments  of  tribes  had  small  assign 
ments,  some  on  the  Missouri  line  south  of  the  Kansas  and  some 
on  the  river  north,  and  none  running  far  back. 

"The  reservations  and  assignments  west  of  Missouri  comprise 
a  part  of  the  great  territory  acquired  from  the  Pawnees,  Kansas 
and  Osages;  further  south  the  Cherokees,  Creeks  and  Choctaws 
have  it  all;  but  west  from  Missouri  the  large  purchase  remains 
more  than  three-fourths  United  States  territory  where  citizens 
may  settle  without  interfering  with  Indian  rights.  The  boundaries 
of  the  Indian  lands  can  be  easily  ascertained  as  they  lie  in  the 
eastern  part  of  the  great  territory  near  to  our  own  settlements. 
All  the  lands  not  included  in  these  reservations  and  grants  are 

164  The  italics  in  this  letter  are  Benton's.  These  assertions  concerning 
the  immediate  right  of  white  men  to  enter  and  settle  in  Nebraska  even 
before  the  establishment  of  a  territorial  government  were  reiterated  by 
Colonel  Benton  in  a  letter  to  C.  F.  Holly  of  Savannah,  dated  May  15,  1853, 
replying  to  an  invitation  to  speak  in  that  locality,  and  in  speeches  delivered 
at  Kansas  City,  Weston  and  Independence  in  the  course  of  the  next  few 
months.  — The  Missouri  Republican,  May  17  and  June  22,  1853. 


Il8  THE  REPEAL  OF 

United  States  territory  and  in  two  places  it  comes  down  to  our 
own  boundary:  one  between  the  Osages'  reservation  and  the  re- 
serves  and  grants  on  the  Kansas,  and  covers  the  upper  waters  of 
the  Neosho  and  Osage,  and  part  of  the  Smoky  Hill  fork;  the 
other,  on  the  north  of  the  Kickapoo  grant.  West  of  the  different 
Indian  grants  and  reserves  all  is  open  out  to  the  mountains.  This 
includes  fine  country,  the  whole  course  of  the  Upper  Arkansas, 
nearly  the  wrhole  of  the  Smoky  Hill  and  Republican  forks,  with 
the  Vermillion  and  all  the  southern  waters  of  the  Platte,  and 
embracing  land  as  fine  as  any  in  Missouri  and  valuable  from 
its  locality.  The  present  Santa  Fe  Road  goes  through  it  after 
emerging  from  the  ShawTnee  grant  and  the  great  Pacific  railway, 
if  it  takes  the  Central  route,  will  traverse  it  from  one  end  to  the 
other,  from  the  Missouri  frontier  to  the  head  of  the  Huerfano 
about  half  way  to  California,  all  rich  land  and  the  country  so 
broad  and  open  that  the  engineer  might  take  his  course  for  the 
road  by  compass  as  a  ship  takes  her  course  at  sea.  Thus  three- 
fourths  of  the  country  which  lies  west  of  the  Missouri  frontier 
out  to  the  Rocky  Mountains  is  free  from  Indian  title;  and  from 
its  beauty,  fertility,  salubrity,  and  geographical  position  must 
speedily  attract  the  preemptor  and  cultivator. 

"Considering  the  settlement  of  this  country  as  intimately 
connected  with  the  location,  construction  and  support  of  the  great 
central  railroad,  I  have  taken  the  trouble  to  examine  maps  and 
treaties  to  verify  these  statements  of  Indian  lands  and  United 
States  territory  west  of  our  State;  and  with  a  view  to  show 
where  settlements  can  be  made  without  infringing  on  Indian 
rights.  There  is  territory  there  open  to  settlement  enough  to 
make  a  great  State,  in  a  temperate  climate,  much  of  it  fertile  and 
on  the  straight  course  to  San  Francisco.  Both  the  Kansas  and 
the  upper  Arkansas  are  rich  and  beautiful,  and  as  high  up  as  the 
Pueblos,  far  above  Bent's  Fort,  good  crops  are  raised  and  stock 
provides  for  itself  winter  as  well  as  summer,  without  food  or 
shelter  from  their  owners. 

"There  was  a  great  objection  to  the  Nebraska  bill  last  winter 
in  Congress  because  the  territory  had  but  few  inhabitants.  That 
objection  need  to  apply  no  longer,  and  the  hardy  pioneer,  that 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  119 

meritorious  citizen  whose  enterprise,  courage  and  industry  is  worth 
so  much  to  his  country  should  lose  no  time  in  commencing  his 
preemption  settlement. 

"Respectfully  your  obliged   fellow  citizen, 

"THOMAS  H.  BENTON." 

With  the  publication  of  the  Cole  county  letter 
a  heated  controversy  immediately  arose  between  Sen 
ator  Atchison  and  Colonel  Benton  regarding  the 
legality  of  immediate  settlement  in  Nebraska.  The 
Weston  Reporter  inquired  of  Mr.  Atchison  whether, 
in  his  opinion,  any  portion  of  Nebraska  was  then 
open  to  legal  settlement  by  white  men.  To  this  in 
quiry  he  replied  in  a  speech  delivered  at  Weston, 
Missouri,  on  the  eleventh  of  June,  1853.  He  then 
said:165 

"The  Act  of  1834  to  regulate  the  intercourse  with  the  Indians 
and  to  preserve  peace  upon  the  frontiers  declared  that  territory 
to  be  Indian  territory,  and  forbade  its  occupation  by  white  men, 
except  only  officers  and  men  in  the  government  employ,  traders 
there  by  special  permission,  and  white  men  who  may  have  married 
among  Indians.  It  is  the  duty  of  military  officers  and  Indian 
Agents  to  prevent  white  settlers  from  locating  in  the  territory." 

"In  consequence  of  this  contradiction  and  not 
because  it  contradicted"  him,  "but  was  calculated  to 
do  great  injury  to  the  people"  of  the  State,  Benton 
applied  to  the  Department  of  the  Interior  at  Wash- 


165  This  speech  at  Weston  seems  to  have  been  substantially  the  same 
in  other  respects  as  one  delivered  by  Atchison  at  Platte  City  five  days  before. 
An  editorial  in  the  Missouri  Republican  of  June  8  thus  referred  to  these 
speeches:  "SENATOR  ATCHISON.  This  gentleman  is  in  the  field  making 
his  appeal  to  the  people  of  Missouri.  We  learn  that  he  was  to  address 
the  people  at  Platte  City  on  Saturday  last;  and  that  on  Saturday  next  he 
will  speak  at  Weston.  The  principal  topic  of  his  speeches,  we  are  given 
to  understand,  will  be  'Nebraska'  and  'the  Road  to  India.'  Public  curiosity 
will  be  excited  to  hear  what  he  has  to  say  on  these  heads."  The  speeches 
are  reported  in  the  Missouri  Republican,  June  22,  1853. 


120  THE  REPEAL  OF 

ington  for  information  "which  being  official  may 
defy  contradiction  from  any  quarter."  166  On  the 
second  of  July,  he  sent  a  map  to  Mr.  Mix,  Chief 
Clerk  of  the  Department  of  the  Interior,  and  with  it 
this  note : 167 

"C.  St.,  July  2. 

"Mr.  Mix,  Dear  Sir, 

"Please  have  the  western  boundary  line  of  Missouri  laid  down 
on  this  map  and  the  outline  of  the  Pawnee,  Kansas  and  Osage 
Purchases,  and  the  reservations  as  they  now  stand  within  that  out 
line.  You  need  not  show  each  purchase  but  the  outline  of  the 
whole.  Yours  truly, 

"THOMAS  H.  BENTON." 

On  the  eighth  the  map  was  returned  to  Colonel 
Benton  accompanied  by  the  following  note  from  the 
Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs: 

"Department  of  the  Interior, 
"Office  Indian  Affairs,  July  8,  1853. 
"Sir: 

"Agreeably  to  your  request  of  the  2d  instant  I  have  the  honor 
to  return  herewith  the  map  you  sent  to  this  office  with  an  outline 
colored  green  of  the  Pawnee,  Kansas  and  Osage  purchases  lying 
west  of  the  Missouri  line  marked  thereon.  The  several  tracts 
of  country  that  have  been  reserved  or  ceded  to  various  Indian 
tribes  within  the  territory  purchased,  as  also  those  situated  imme 
diately  north  and  bordering  thereon  are  respectively  designated 
in  varied  colors,  which  it  is  hoped  will  answer  the  purpose  of 
your  request.  Very  respectfully  your  obedient  servant, 

"GEORGE  W.  MANYPENNY,  Comr. 

"Hon.  Thomas  H.  Benton,  C.  St., 
"Washington,  D.  C."  168 


phrases  quoted  are  from  Benton's  Monroe  county  letter. 
167  Published  in  the  Missouri  Republican,  September  16,  1853. 


THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  121 

Col.  Benton  wrote  another  letter  to  his  con 
stituents  between  the  eighth  and  thirtieth  of  July  169 
in  which  he  explains  in  greater  detail  than  in  his 
Cole  county  letter  his  views  of  the  state  of  the  laws 
and  treaties  relating  to  the  Nebraska  country.  This 
letter,  clearly  intended  for  publication,  was  addressed 
to  the  citizens  of  Monroe  County  in  response  to  an 
invitation  to  visit  the  county  and  address  the  people 
on  "the  great  subject  of  the  day,  that  of  a  railroad  to 
the  Pacific  Ocean."  "Connected  with  this  road,"  he 
repeated,  "and  as  one  of  the  facilities  for  making  it 
is  the  desirable  object  of  settling  the  country  west  of 
Missouri  out  to  New  Mexico  and  Utah;  and  I  have 
the  gratification  to  inform  you,"  he  adds,  "'.... 
that  there  is  nothing  in  the  state  of  our  Indian  rela 
tions  to  prevent  it."  He  again  presented  in  detail 
the  nature  and  extent  of  the  cessions  and  reservations 
made  by  the  Indians  in  the  region  west  of  Missouri, 
and  alluded  to  the  fact  that  he  had  sent  the  map 
mentioned  above  "to  be  engraved  and  published  for 
the  public  information,"  claiming  that  it  supported 
his  main  contention.  Finally,  after  having  present 
ed  these  points,  he  reached  a  conclusion  which  in 
volved  an  admission  eagerly  seized  upon  by  Mr. 
Atchison : 

"I  therefore  consider  the  cessions  of  1825  and  1833  from  the 
Kansas  and  Osages  and  Pawnees  (so  far  as  they  have  not  been 
reserved  or  ceded  to  the  Indians)  to  be  like  any  other  lands  to 

168  This   letter   appeared   in   the  Missouri   Republican,   September   16, 
1853- 

169  I  have  been  unable  after  a  lengthy  search  to  discover  the  exact  date 
of  this  letter  but  feel  certain  that  it  must  have  been  written  between  the 
dates  mentioned. 


122  THE  REPEAL  OF 

which  the  Indian  title  has  been  extinguished,  that  is  to  say,  United 
States  lands;  and  although  there  are  acts  of  Congress  forbidding 
settlement  or  cutting  timber  on  the  United  States  land,  yet  we  all 
know  that  all  such  acts  were  passed  when  our  land  policy  was 
less  liberal  than  it  is  now  and  that  they  are  a  dead  letter  on  the 
books  and  that  all  such  settlers  get  preemption  rights  in  one  hun 
dred  and  sixty  acres,  instead  of  being  dragooned  by  the  military 
and  sued  by  the  Government." 

Near  the  close  of  the  letter  Benton  could  not 
resist  the  temptation  to  have  a  thrust  at  Atchison  and 
the  rest  of  the  Missouri  delegation  in  Congress : 

"I  consider  it  very  unfortunate  that  no  person  in  Congress 
knew  the  condition  of  the  western  territory  when  the  Nebraska 
bill  was  under  discussion  last  winter.  If  any  one  had  known  it 
and  merely  sent  a  note  to  the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs, 
asking  to  have  the  Indian  reservations  and  grants  marked  off  it 
would  have  put  an  end  to  all  the  lamentations  about  the  violation 
of  Indian  rights  with  which  the  two  Houses  were  so  incontinently 
entertained  and  would  have  put  an  end  to  all  objections  to  the 
Nebraska  territory,  except  the  true  one  which  is  the  Compromise 
line  of  1820.  Next  winter  they  will  be  met  with  the  map  and 
all  their  Indian  tears  will  be  dried  up."  17° 

The  joy  of  the  Benton  newspapers  in  the  State 
over  what  they  regarded  as  the  complete  humiliation 

170  In  Jefferson  Inquirer,  August  13,  1853.  The  italics  are  mine.  The 
Savannah  (Mo.)  Sentinel,  looking  upon  the  Monroe  county  letter  as  a 
complete  humiliation  of  Atchison,  closes  a  long  exultation  with  the  follow 
ing  grandiloquent  paragraph:  "When  Nebraska  shall  be  settled,  the  way 
will  have  been  prepared  by  Benton  for  the  rise  of  that  future  'central 
star'  of  the  famed  'Constellation.'  When  the  central  route  shall  be  located, 
it  is  to  Benton,  his  facts,  his  labors,  his  efforts,  that  Missouri  and  Nebraska, 
twin  sisters  in  position  and  destiny,  will  owe  it  that  they  shall  become  the 
enterport[sic]  of  the  world's  trade,  the  storehouse  of  the  world's  wealth 
and  the  garden  spot  for  its  supplies.  When  that  grand  highway  itself 
shall  have  been  completed,  the  bust  that  shall  grace  the  tallest  peak  of 
the  Rocky  Mountains,  next  to  Columbus,  will  be  that  of  Benton,  looking 
like  that  renowned  navigator,  westward  for  the  East,  towards  India!" 
Quoted  in  the  Jefferson  Inquirer,  August,  20,  1853. 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  123 

of  Atchison,  knew  no  bounds.  "Benton's  triumph 
is  complete,"  said  the  St.  Louis  Evening  News,171 
"and  Atchison's  disgrace  is  unlimited." 

"For  ten  years,"  continued  the  same  paper,  "Atchison  was 
chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Indian  Affairs  and  living  in  sight 
of  Nebraska  for  many  years  longer,  and  yet  he  was  wholly  ignorant 
of  the  condition  and  proprietorship  of  that  country!  But  in  his 
ignorance  he  stood  up  before  the  world  and  disowned  it  as  the 
property  of  the  United  States!  What  a  humiliation  for  him  to 
be  thus  shown  up  before  the  people  of  Missouri  whom  he  mis 
represents  so  outrageously  by  his  opposition  to  Nebraska!  Let 
him  resign  and  hide  himself  in  shame,  Vice-president  though  he 
be.  His  ignorance  is  discreditable  to  the  State  and  the  positions 
he  has  held All  honor  to  Benton  !  .  .  . 

To  the  various  positions  assumed  by  Benton  in 
the  Cole  county  and  Monroe  county  letters,  Senator 
Atchison  replied  in  speeches  at  Parkville  172  on  the 
sixth  of  August  and  at  Fayette  in  November.173  He 
took  up  in  detail  each  of  the  Indian  treaties,  cessions 
and  reservations  and  the  Acts  of  Congress  referred 
to  by  Benton,  and  endeavored  to  refute  Benton's  in 
terpretation  of  them. 

In  the  course  of  his  reply  at  Parkville,  Atchison 
inquired: 

"Is  it  not  strange,  fellow  citizens,  if  Colonel  Benton  is  right 
in  his  opinion  thus  expressed  that  the  discovery  has  for  the  first 
time  been  made  by  him  within  the  last  few  months?  Is  it  not 
strange  that  all  the  country  within  the  bounds  of  Nebraska  has 
been  deemed  and  treated  as  Indian  country  by  our  Government 
and  by  our  citizens?  But  now  all  at  once  our  old  Senator  has 
broken  out,  as  we  may  say,  'in  a  fresh  place.'  He  has  found  a 


!71  Quoted  in  Jefferson  Inquirer,  July  30,  1853. 

J72  Reported  in  the  Missouri  Republican,  August  31,  1853. 

J73  Reported  in  the  Jefferson  Inquirer,  November  14,  1853. 


124  THE  REPEAL  OF 

'mare's  nest.'  But  now  in  what  I  have  said  I  have  done  one 
Gen.  Sutherland  (commonly  called  'Old  Nebraska')  an  injustice; 
who,  as  I  am  informed,  was  among  you  a  year  or  two  since  beat 
ing  up  recruits  to  settle  Nebraska,  declaring  that  this  country 
which  will  be  designated  on  Col.  Benton's  map,  was  open  for 
settlement.  But  you  declared  the  man  crazy;  and  the  officers  of 
the  Government  threatened  him  with  the  penalties  of  the  law. 
But  now  all  is  changed.  I  do  not  mention  Sutherland's  name  for 
the  purpose  of  depriving  Col.  Benton  of  the  glory  of  being  the 
discoverer  of  this  new  doctrine.  Col.  Benton  admits  that  there 
are  acts  of  Congress  forbidding  settlement  on  the  United  States 
lands.  But  he  says  they  are  a  dead  letter  on  the  statute  books. 
Now  this  I  deny,  not  for  the  purpose  of  'contradicting'  him  but 
because  he  is  mistaken,  for  the  laws  are  every  day  enforced  by 
the  courts.  I  will  not  say  that  he  is  either  ignorant  or  perverse. 
I  also  deny  that  any  persons  can  under  any  law  of  Congress  obtain 
a  preemption  right  by  settling  on  any  land  in  Nebraska.  I  deny 
that  Col.  Benton's  map  proves  anything  for  him.  His  position  is 
that  there  is  territory  in  Nebraska  open  for  settlement  by  white 

men.     I  deny  it.     He  may  be  right  and  I  may  be  wrong 

Instead  of  calling  upon  the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs  for 
the  map,  why  did  he  not  simply  ask  him  or  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior  for  his  opinion  whether  any  country  west  of  Missouri 
or  Iowa  could  under  the  existing  laws  and  treaties  be  settled  by 
white  men?  If  so,  what  country?  This  would  have  settled  the 
whole  matter  with  me  and  would  have  been  more  satisfactory  to 
our  people  who  desire  to  emigrate  to  Nebraska." 

Atchison  then  went  on  to  say  that  the  day  after 
he  had  read  Benton's  Monroe  county  letter  he  ad- 
dressed  a  letter  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  re 
questing  an  official  expression  of  opinion  whether  any 
portion  of  the  Nebraska  Territory  was  then  open  to 
settlement  by  white  men,  and  if  so,  what  portion. 

"If  the  Secretary,"  said  Atchison,  "can  consistently  with  his 

duty  answrer  me  then  the  question  is  settled I  expect  an 

answer  in  a  few  weeks I  have  no  pride  of  opinion  in  the 


THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  125 

matter.  I  care  not  whether  Col.  Benton  should  be  right  or 
wrong.  Indeed  I  rather  hope  that  he  may  be  right.  Many  of 
our  citizens  are  anxious  to  get  into  that  country.  I  trust  that 
they  may  be  gratified.  But  Col.  Benton  says  that  the  opinion  I 
expressed  dissenting  from  him  was  calculated  'to  do  great  injury 
to  the  people  of  the  State.'  Now  I  do  not  see  how  my  opinion 
could  do  the  least  injury  to  the  people  of  the  State.  If  they  act 
upon  it,  they  can  sustain  no  injury  whether  I  be  right  or  wrong, 
But  if  they  act  upon  Col.  Benton's  opinion  and  he  should  be 
mistaken  in  the  law,  then  they  will  sustain  great  injury,  for  it  is 
no  small  matter  for  a  poor  man  to  leave  his  home  and  travel  hun 
dreds  of  miles  into  the  Indian  country  and  then  be  driven 
back " 

Atchison's  letter  of  inquiry,  dated  August  3,  was 
referred  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  to  the  Com 
missioner  of  Indian  Affairs  for  reply.  That  official 
on  the  sixteenth  of  August,  sent  a  long  communica 
tion  to  Senator  Atchison.174  Omitting  its  lengthy 


!74  Printed  in  the  Missouri  Republican,  August  26,  1853.  The  italics 
are  mine.  In  his  speech  at  Fayette,  Mo.,  in  November,  1853,  Atchison  is  re 
ported  to  have  asserted,  "that  Manypenny's  letter  was  shown  to  the 
Cabinet  and  contains  the  views  of  the  Administration  and  was  deemed 
of  such  importance  lest  the  false  views  of  Benton  should  have  a  deleterious 
influence  that  it  was  published  in  the  organ  of  the  Administration  on  the 

evening  of  the  same  day  upon  which  it  was  written "  —  From 

report  of  his  speech  in  Jefferson  Inquirer,  November  14,  1853.  See  Atchi- 
son's  letter,  December  21,  1853,  in  Washington  Daily  Union,  December 
23,  1853. 

It  may  be  interesting  to  see  the  way  in  which  a  leading  Benton  organ 
viewed  the  letter  of  Manypenny  to  Atchison.  The  following  is  taken  from 
an  editorial  in  the  St.  Joseph  Gazette  of  September  24:  ".  .  .  .  This 
letter  deserves  passing  notice.  It  is  true  as  Mr.  Manypenny  insists,  that 
no  part  of  Nebraska  strictly  speaking  is  open  to  settlement,  but  he  is  en 
tirely  wrong  we  apprehend  in  supposing  that  it  is  illegal  to  settle  in 
Nebraska  because  of  the  Indian  intercourse  act.  That  act  forbids  settle 
ment  only  on  Indian  land.  But  it  is  an  abuse  of  language  to  call  these 
Indian  lands  to  which  the  Indian  title  is  extinguished.  The  old  act  of 
1807  which  Col.  Benton  well  called  obsolete  is  the  only  law  in  the  way  of 
the  whites  settling  on  the  public  lands  of  Nebraska.  But  Mr.  Manypenny 


126  THE  REPEAL  OF 

narrative  of  the  dealings  of  the  Government  with  the 
various  Indian  tribes,  it  is  sufficient  to  quote  the  con 
cluding  paragraphs  which  may  be  regarded  as  offi 
cially  deciding  the  points  in  dispute  between  Atchi- 
son  and  Benton. 

"In  view  of  the  interest  which  appears  to  be  taken  in  this 
subject  in  the  West  and  of  the  importance  therefore  of  a  proper 
understanding  of  it,  I  have  extended  this  communication  beyond 


insists  that  the  Indians  have  the  right  to  hunt  on  all  the  lands  in  Nebraska. 
Here  again  he  is  wrong.  The  vast  majority  of  public  lands  in  Nebraska 
were  purchased  from  the  Kansas  and  Osage  Indians.  In  the  treaties  with 
these  tribes  no  provision  concerning  the  Indians  hunting  on  the  lands  ceded 
to  the  United  States  is  found,  and  even  the  provision  referred  to  by  Mr. 
Manypenny  in  the  Pawnee  treaty  is  one  that  can  at  any  time  be  annulled 
by  the  President. 

"Mr.  Manypenny's  letter,  however,  contains  one  statement  of  value  to 
those  who  wish  to  settle  in  the  territory  of  Nebraska.  He  admits  that  the 
New  York  Indians  have  no  title  to  the  lands  in  Nebraska  which  had  been 
set  apart  for  them.  These  lands  containing  several  million  acres,  are 
contiguous  to  the  State  of  Missouri.  If  Mr.  Manypenny  is  right,  then 
there  is  a  large  tract  of  country  in  Nebraska,  south  of  the  Missouri  river, 
and  adjoining  our  State,  which  is  at  this  very  time  subject  to  settlement. 
,  .  .  .  The  treaty  of  1838  requires  them  to  settle  on  the  lands  in  Nebraska 
within  five  years  from  the  date  thereof,  or  forfeit  their  right  to  the  same. 
The  five  years  have  long  ago  elapsed  and  according  to  the  letter  of  the 
treaty  the  New  York  Indians  have  no  right  to  any  part  of  the  Nebraska 
territory.  Whether  the  Government  should  enforce  the  treaty  with  this 
degree  of  strictness  we  are  not  prepared  to  say.  The  lands  set  apart  for 
the  New  York  Indians  between  the  Missouri  and  Kansas  rivers  and  the 
southern  line  of  the  State  of  Missouri  contain  1,824,000  acres,  or  1850 

square  miles,  nearly  the  size  of  the  Platte  Purchase "  —  In  Jefferson 

Inquirer,  September  24,  1853. 

It  would  be  interesting,  but  would  consume  too  much  space,  to  compare 
these  different  claims  with  the  facts  as  stated  in  Miss  Anna  H.  Abel's 
thesis  entitled,  "Indian  Reservations  in  Kansas  and  the  Extinguishment  of 
their  Title,"  in  Kansas  Hist.  Soc.  Trans.,  viii,  72  ff.  The  same  volume  also 
contains  a  table  of  various  Indian  reservations  in  Kansas  Territory,  with 
the  area  of  each,  and  outline  maps  showing  reservations  in  1846  and  in 
1856.  The  guarantee  clauses  in  the  Indian  treaties  mentioned  in 
these  discussions  are  quoted  in  the  speech  of  Howard  of  Texas,  February 
10,  1853 ;  Cong.  Globe,  xxvi,  556. 


THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  1 27 

the  ordinary  limits  of  a  letter,  and  although  prepared  during  a 
pressure  of  business,  I  have  confidence  in  the  narrative  of  facts 
which  it  embodies,  and  from  which  /  am  not  able  to  say  to  you 
that  any  portion  of  the  country  within  the  limits  of  the  proposed 
Territory  of  Nebraska  is  in  such  condition  that  the  white  man 
can  lawfully  occupy  it  for  settlement. 

"Congress  at  its  last  session  authorized  the  President  to  treat 
with  the  Indian  tribes  located  along  the  western  boundary  of 
Iowa  and  Missouri  and  for  the  purpose  of  extinguishing  their 
title  in  whole  or  in  part  to  the  country  they  now  occupy  and 
measures  are  in  progress  to  effect  that  object. 

"Whatever  differences  of  opinion  may  exist  on  the  question, 

you  have  propounded,   it   is  confidently  expected   that  no   action 

will  be  taken  by  any  portion  of  the  people  which  will  embarrass 

the  Government  in  the  contemplated  negotiations  with  the  Indians. 

"Very  respectfully    your  obedient  servant, 

"GEORGE  W.  MANYPENNY,  Commissioner. 
"Hon.  D.  R.  Atchison,  Platte  City,  Mo." 

It  was  now  the  turn  of  the  newspapers  friendly 
to  Atchison  to  exult.  Said  one  of  the  more  mod 
erate  :  17S 

"A  more  decided  victory  could  not  be  obtained  by  one  indi 
vidual  over  another  than  Atchison  has  achieved  in  this  controversy. 
....  It  is  suggested  that  Colonel  Benton's  map  of  the  Nebraska 
Territory  will  be  at  a  very  considerable  discount  in  this  State  after 
seeing  Colonel  Manypenny's  history  of  the  legislation  of  Congress 
in  regard  to  the  Indian  territory." 

In  the  interval  between  the  writing  of  the  Mon- 

175  The  Missouri  Republican,  August  26,  1853.  After  the  appearance 
of  this  correspondence  the  Missouri  Republican  (Sept.  17,  1853)  made  this 
comment:  "The  note  of  Col.  Benton  of  July  2  asking  for  the  map  is  a 

remarkable  specimen  of  ostrich  diplomacy This  note  has  hitherto 

been  suppressed  though  he  published  Col.  Manypenny's  reply  to  it.  Having 
stuck  his  own  head  in  the  bush,  he  hoped  to  conceal  his  design  and  entrap 
the  Commissioner  into  furnishing  a  map  to  go  forth  without  official  ex 
planations;  he  thought  he  would  be  allowed  to  use  it  and  nobody  would 
see  the  trick.  But  the  Commissioner  has  been  after  him  and  has  pretty 
completely  stripped  him  of  his  plumes." 


128  THE  REPEAL  OF 

roe  county  letter  and  the  Manypenny  letter  of 
August  1 6,  the  map  referred  to  in  Benton's  corres 
pondence  was  published  and  offered  for  sale.  Short 
ly  after  the  writing  of  his  letter  of  the  sixteenth, 
Colonel  Manypenny  visited  the  Indian  tribes  located 
in  Nebraska  and  while  there  a  copy  of  Benton's  map 
was  brought  to  his  notice.  He  thereupon  immed 
iately  addressed  the  following  communication  to  the 
Independence  (Missouri)  Reporter:176 

"Indian    Country,    Sept.    7,    1853. 
"To  the  Editor  of  the  Independence  Reporter:     Sir: 

"A  friend  has  just  placed  in  my  hands  a  map  of  a  portion 
of  the  country  west  of  Iowa,  Missouri,  and  Arkansas  which  has 
the  following  title: 

'  'Official  Map  of  the  Indian  Reservations  in  Nebraska  Ter 
ritory  Drawn  by  the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs  at  the  Request 
of  Colonel  Benton  and  Published  to  Show  the  Public  Lands 
in  the  Territory  Subject  to  Settlement?  177 

"This  map  appears  to  have  been  lithographed  by  'Jules 
Hutawa,'  St.  Louis;  and  the  title  is  well  calculated  to  deceive  the 
reader,  for  which  reason  I  deem  it  my  duty  to  say  that  no  such 
map  was  ever  drawn  in  the  Indian  Office  by  me  for  any  such  pur 
pose',  178  and  further  I  deem  it  my  duty  to  say  that  in  my  opinion 
there  is  not  any  land  in  Nebraska  Territory  subject  at  this  time 
to  lawful  settlement. 

"Colonel  Benton  did  send  to  the  Indian  Department  a  map 
of  the  United  States  and  the  Territories  with  the  request  that  the 
outline  of  certain  Indian  purchases  should  be  laid  down  on  it, 
with  the  Indian  reservations  within  the  outline,  which  was  done; 

176  This   letter   appeared   in   the  Missouri  Republican,    September    17, 
1853.     See  also  New  York  Tribune,  November  7,  1853,  quoting  the  Wash 
ington  Star. 

177  These   italics   are   Manypenny's.     My  efforts   to  obtain   a   copy  of 
this  map  have  been  unsuccessful.     Indeed  I  have  been  unable  to  ascertain 
that  a  copy  is  in  existence. 

178  These   italics   are   mine. 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  129 

but  the  question  as  to  the  views  of  the  office  in  relation  to  the  right 
to  settle  Nebraska  was  not  asked. 

"Accompanying  this  letter  I  send  you  a  copy  of  Colonel 
Benton's  note  to  the  Indian  Office  transmitting  his  map  and  my 
reply  when  the  work  was  done  and  the  map  returned.  It  will 
be  seen  that  there  is  not  a  word  said  about  the  settlement  of 
Nebraska.  You  will  please  insert  them  in  your  paper  with  this 
letter. 

"The  publication  of  this  map  has  done  Colonel  Benton  and 
the  Indian  Office  great  injustice  and  the  'Official  Map'  for  the 
purpose  intended  by  him  is  unworthy  of  credit  and  ought  not  to  be 
purchased  or  circulated. 

"Very  respectfully  your  obedient  servant, 

"GEORGE  W.  MANYPENNY, 
"Commissioner  of   Indian  Affairs." 

Into  the  details  of  this  controversy  over  the 
status  of  Indian  lands  in  Nebraska  and  the  right  of 
white  men  to  settle  there  in  the  absence  of  further 
legislation,  it  is  unnecessary  to  go  further.  In  the 
present  connection  the  controversy  is  important  for 
four  main  reasons.  In  the  first  place,  it  tends  to 
prove  that  the  subject  of  organizing  a  territorial 
government  in  Nebraska  was  forced  to  the  front  in 
the  Missouri  campaign  of  1853,  not  by  the  pro- 
slavery  following  of  Atchison,  but  by  the  free-soil 
element  in  the  Missouri  Democracy  led  by  Colonel 
Benton.  In  the  next  place  it  is  another  indication 
of  Colonel  Benton's  eagerness  to  crush  Atchison  and 
of  the  extreme  to  which  he  was  willing  to  go  in  order 
to  accomplish  that  end.  In  the  third  place,  back  of 
the  purely  selfish  motives  by  which  Benton  was  un 
questionably  moved,  it  is  possible  to  discern  a  motive 
born  of  his  free-soil  sympathies  and  his  antipathy  to 
slavery  extension.  The  subject  of  the  early  repeal 


130  THE  REPEAL  OF 

of  the  Missouri  Compromise  had  become  so  bruited 
about  among  the  politicians  by  the  early  part  of  the 
summer  of  1853  &**  Benton  was  undoubtedly  aware 
of  what  his  enemies  ultimately  hoped  to  achieve  in 
this  particular.  He  may  have  reasoned  that  they 
were  unprepared  to  take  up  the  fight  for  the  Repeal, 
and  that  by  forcing  the  settlement  of  Nebraska  at  the 
earliest  possible  moment,  even  at  the  cost  of  a  very 
loose  interpretation  of  existing  statutes,  the  move 
ment  for  the  Repeal  might  be  killed  in  its  infancy, 
and  a  new  State  consecrated  to  Freedom.  Finally, 
the  controversy  had  the  effect  of  arousing  or  stimu 
lating  a  certain,  or  rather  an  uncertain,  degree  of 
active  and  aggressive  interest  among  Missourians  in 
the  opening  of  the  new  Territory  to  white  settlement. 
Upon  the  latter  point  a  few  words  more  need  to  be 
added. 

If  we  may  believe  the  statements  of  an  ardent 
Benton  paper,  multitudes  eagerly  accepted  Benton's 
interpretation  of  the  law  respecting  settlement  in 
Nebraska.  The  organ  referred  to  said  in  November, 

1853  -m 

"We  have  the  best  of  authority  for  saying  that  the  emigra 
tion  to  Nebraska  is  surprisingly  great.  Trains  of  wagons  may 
be  seen  from  day  to  day  advancing  upon  that  Territory.  The 
knowledge  of  its  genial  climate  and  fertile  soil  which  has  been 
widely  diffused  through  the  agency  of  Colonel  Benton  and  the 

press  is  now  producing  its  legitimate  results It  is  not  alone 

from  Missouri  the  columns  proceed  which  are  debouching  on 
Nebraska.  Kentucky  and  other  adjacent  States  are  pouring 
streams  into  the  reservoir.  Go  ahead!  Missouri  and  Kentucky. 


Iowa  Republican,  November  23,  1853,  quoting  the  St.  Louis 
Democrat.  This  is  briefly  contradicted  in  the  New  York  Tribune,  Novem 
ber  12,  1853. 


THE   MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  131 

....  You  are  adjured  by  a  cabal  of  screaming  Hypocrites  to 
keep  aloof  from  Nebraska.  They  cry  out  when  you  approach 
it  as  if  it  was  the  holy  of  holies.  They  put  forward  as  a  pretext 
the  right  of  the  red  man,  but  the  real  cause  is  because  you  can 
[not]  be  introduced  by  a  negro.  The  white  man  forsooth  must 
only  enter  into  Nebraska  by  the  aid  and  companionship  of  a  black 
man,  as  if  that  country  was  destined  to  be  a  mere  slavery  nursery 
on  an  Indian  preserve. 

"You  must  walk  on  tiptoe  when  you  come  in  view  of  the 
boundaries  of  that  Territory  and  not  with  the  firm  and  advancing 
stride  of  your  ancestor.  But  it  is  evident  that  you  have  not  the 
fear  of  that  croaking  cabal  before  your  eyes,  who  are  trying  to 
frighten  you  away  by  flapping  the  shreds  of  an  obsolete  law  in 
your  westward  looking  eyes.  Be  not  afraid.  The  intrigues  of 
that  official  who  haunted  the  wigwams  of  the  Indians  to  incite 
them  to  murder  you  will  be  exposed  when  Congress  meets."  18° 

After  making  considerable  allowance  for  parti 
san  exaggeration,  one  may  safely  conclude  that  Ben- 
ton's  attempts  to  rouse  popular  interest  in  the  imme 
diate  settlement  of  Nebraska  were  not  wholly  fu 
tile.181 

Benton's  disconcerting  aggressiveness,  further 
more,  in  declaring  Nebraska  legally  open  to  settle 
ment,  as  well  as  his  misrepresentations  of  Atchison's 
attitude  toward  the  Pacific  railroad  —  although  in 
jurious  to  himself  in  the  end  —  had  the  immediate 
effect  of  seriously  weakening  Atchison's  position  by 
compelling  him  to  act  upon  the  defensive,  a  position 
which  no  politician  with  a  formidable  antagonist 
relishes,  and  the  seriousness  of  his  position  was  aggra 
vated  by  the  general  interest  felt  in  the  subject. 

180  An  allusion  to  Col.  Manypenny's  visit  to  Nebraska. 
!81  See  the  New  York  Tribune,  July  12,  and  November  26,  1853,  quot 
ing  the  St.  Louis  Democrat. 


132  THE  REPEAL  OF 

Said    one    of    the    prominent    anti-Benton    news 
papers:  182 

"In  this  question  (shall  Nebraska  come  into  the  Union?) 
all  are  interested;  it  touches  the  interest  of  Missouri,  and  indeed 
in  it  is  involved  the  prosperity  of  the  Union. 

"The  people  will  not  become  apprised  of  these  facts  until  the 
question  is  agitated  in  the  public  journals;  there  is  an  indifference 
on  the  public  mind,  an  apathy,  which  is  unaccountable.  This 
supineness  should  be  shaken  off  and  this  subject  viewed  in  all  its 
bearings  in  order  that  a  healthy  state  of  opinion  may  be  aroused 
before  has  come  the  tug  of  war. 

"Efforts  have  been  made  and  ere  long  they  will  be  repeated 
to  establish  a  regular  territorial  government  in  Nebraska,  which 
will  be  succeeded  in  unless  efforts  are  made  to  prevent  it,  after 
which  application  will  be  made  for  admission  as  a  State  and  as  a 
free  State. 

"Who  will  doubt  but  that  Nebraska  will  be  a  free  State,  if 
she  be  allowed  to  come  in  at  all?  By  the  Missouri  Compromise 
all  or  the  greater  part  of  Nebraska  is  free  territory.  But  if  the 
Compromise  is  disregarded  —  still  no  other  conclusion  can  be 
formed,  if  we  suffer  experience  to  teach  us." 

From  such  comments  as  this,  and  from  the  in 
creasingly  bitter  personal  attacks  upon  Benton,183  it 


182  The  Jefferson  Examiner,  quoted  in  the  Jefferson  Inquirer,,  October 
22,  1853.  No  more  is  quoted  than  is  given  above. 

!83  In  the  latest  of  Atchison's  speeches  delivered  in  the  campaign  of 
1853,  of  which  I  have  found  any  report,  namely,  the  one  delivered  at 
Fayette  early  in  November,  occurs  the  following  diatribe: 

"As  an  instance  of  his  egotism  and  effrontery  in  his  Monroe  county 
letter,  Colonel  Benton  writes  that  Atchison  does  not  contradict  him.  But 
all  this  slang  of  Benton's  would  have  been  unnoticed  by  him  [Atchison] 
had  it  not  been  for  the  injustice  Benton  was  doing  the  people,  saying 
nothing  of  his  fulsome  falsehoods,  to  say  nothing  of  his  lies.  Benton's 
arguments  upon  this  subject  [the  right  of  immediate  settlement  in  Ne 
braska]  would  disgrace  any  pettifogger  in  the  State;  false  conclusions 
drawn  from  stupid  assumptions  were  characteristic  of  the  man.  In  his 
monomania  the  ignis  fatuus  self  obscures  every  shadow  of  self-respect  or 
regard  for  the  truth.  Nothing  is  too  high  or  holy  for  his  animadversion 
and  misrepresentation.  In  him  the  honors  of  office  and  the  gray  hairs 
of  age  are  alike  prostituted  to  the  unholy  purpose  of  giving  credit  to  his 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  133 

is  obvious  that  Senator  Atchison  was  not  experiencing 
any  feeling  of  assurance  of  ultimate  victory  over 
Benton.  Indeed  the  political  situation  throughout  the 
summer  and  fall  of  1853  was  full  of  difficulty  for 
Mr.  Atchison. 

In  order  to  recover  the  ground  lost  as  a  result 
of  Benton's  unexpected  manoeuvres,  Atchison  could 
not  fail  to  perceive  that  he  too  must  assume  at  the 
earliest  possible  moment  an  aggressive  Nebraska  pol 
icy.  At  the  same  time  he  was  confronted  by 
his  inconsistency  in  having  first  opposed  and  finally 
supported,  in  the  face  of  his  radical  pro-slavery  ut 
terances,  a  Nebraska  territorial  bill  retaining  the 
Missouri  Compromise  restriction.  Stung  by  the 
newspaper  attacks  of  which  an  example  has  been 
quoted  from  the  Jefferson  Inquirer,  Atchison  real 
ized  that  to  regain  the  confidence  of  his  constituents, 
he  must  explain  to  them  even  more  fully  and  satis 
factorily  than  he  had  explained  to  the  Senate  the 
reasons  for  his  recent  inconsistency.  For  the  future 
the  only  course  open  to  him  was  to  assume  a  position 
in  regard  to  Nebraska  which  should  not  only  har 
monize  both  with  his  former  pro-slavery  utterances 
and  with  the  interests  of  his  slaveholding  constituents 
and  the  desire  of  the  western  section  of  the  State  for 
the  early  organization  of  the  new  Territory,  but 

filthy  vituperations.  Even  Congress  by  him  is  dragged  from  the  high 
position  of  reflecting  the  sentiments  of  an  intelligent  and  virtuous  people 
to  the  lewd  embrace  of  a  common  courtesan.  'From  the  abundance  of  the 
heart  the  mouth  speaketh'  is  an  assertion  of  Holy  Writ  that  points  to  the 
steeps  from  which  emanates  all  this  loathsome  effluvia,  Benton's  heart,  the 
blackness  of  whose  conceptions  would  induce  a  Nero  to  pluck  it  from  his 
polluted  bosom;  and  yet  he  would  sit  as  an  umpire  upon  the  action  of 

Congress  which  he  denounces  for  its  ignorance  and  stupidity " 

Reported  in  the  Jefferson  Inquirer,  November  14,  1853. 


134  THE  REPEAL  OF 

which  should  also  be  essentially  different  from  Ben- 
ton's  Nebraska  policy.  As  early  as  his  speeches  at 
Weston  and  Platte  City  in  June,184  Senator  Atchison 
seems  to  have  discovered  the  best,  in  fact  the  only, 
card  to  play  with  the  prospect  of  winning;  and  as 
the  campaign  progressed  he  played  that  card  with  in 
creasing  assurance  and  aggressiveness  —  one  may  al 
most  say  desperation.  He  took  great  pains  in  these 
speeches  and  in  his  speeches  at  Parkville  18S  in  Au 
gust,  and  at  Fayette  in  November,  i853,186  to  define 
his  position  with  reference  to  Nebraska.  One  reason 
offered  in  explanation  of  his  early  opposition  to  the 
Nebraska  bill  was  based  upon  the  same  economic 
consideration  which  he  had  stated  to  the  Senate.  A 
second  reason  was  based  upon  Indian  considerations: 

"All  the  [Nebraska]  territory  of  much  value  was  in  the 
possession  and  occupation  of  various  tribes  of  Indians.  This  pos 
session  and  occupation  was  guaranteed  by  treaties,  and  with  some 
of  those  tribes  we  had  stipulations  not  to  form  a  territorial  or 

state  government It  therefore  becomes  necessary  for  us 

before  a  government  can  be  organized  to  maintain  inviolate  our 
plighted  faith  by  extinguishing  the  Indian  titles  to  the  land  and 
obtain  their  consent  to  the  formation  of  a  territorial  or  state 
government."  187 

The  third  and  most  important  reason  of  all 
related  to  the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  new  Territory, 
and  upon  this  Senator  Atchison  made  a  special  effort 
to  clarify  and  emphasize  his  position,  past,  present 
and  future.  At  Weston  and  Platte  City  he  said: 

184  June  6  and  n,  respectively.     Reported  in  the  Missouri  Republican, 
June  22,   1853. 

185  August  6.     Reported  in  Missouri  Republican,  August  31,  1853. 
18<5  Reported   in   Jefferson  Inquirer,   November   14,   1853. 

187  Quoted  from  the  speeches  at  Weston  and  Platte  City. 


THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  135 

Colonel  Benton  and  others  "had  assumed  that  slavery  was 
excluded  from  that  Territory  by  the  law  commonly  called  the 
Missouri  Compromise.  If  so,  I  was  then  and  am  now  opposed 
to  interfering  with  that  Territory  unless  that  restriction  can  be  re 
moved.  188  I  was  in  favor  of,  and  did  vote  for,  the  appropriation 
of  money  to  enable  the  President  to  make  treaties  with  the  In 
dians  to  extinguish  their  title  to  lands  upon  which  they  reside,  and 
to  obtain  their  consent  to  the  organization  of  a  territorial  govern 
ment,  and  this  was  all  that  Congress  should  in  my  opinion  have 
done  in  the  premises  at  the  last  session.  Now  ....  I  will  tell 
you  what  I  will  do.  I  will  vote  for  the  ratification  of  treaties  to 
extinguish  the  Indian  titles  to  lands  in  that  Territory  and  I  will 
support  a  bill  to  organize  a  government  for  the  Territory  upon  the 
condition  that  such  bill  contains  no  restriction  upon  the  subject 
of  slavery,  and  not  otherwise.  I  will  vote  for  a  bill  that  leaves 
the  slaveholder  and  the  non-slaveholder  upon  terms  of  equality. 
I  am  willing  that  the  people  who  may  settle  there  and  who  have 
the  deepest  interest  in  this  question  should  decide  it  for  themselves. 
As  a  very  large  and  respectable  portion  of  my  constituents  are 
directly  or  indirectly  interested  in  slave  property,  I  am  unwilling 
that  they  with  this  species  of  property  should  be  excluded.  I  will 
give  no  advantage  to  one  citizen  over  another.  Mr.  Abelard 
Guthrie,  in  an  address  or  circular  to  his  constituents  says  that 
'Atchison  politely  told  him  that  he  would  see  the  Territory  of 
Nebraska  sunk  in  hell  before  he  would  vote  for  it  as  freesoil  terri 
tory.'  ....  I  do  not  remember  of  making  use  of  expressions  so 
emphatic  but  I  will  not  deny  it.  I  may  have  said  so.  But  that 
there  may  be  no  mistake  and  that  I  may  not  be  misunderstood 
hereafter,  /  now  say  emphatically  that  I  will  not  vote  for  any  bill 
that  makes  Nebraska  a  freesoil  Territory.  I  have  not,  and  I  do 
not  intend  upon  any  occasion  to  yield  one  inch  to  the  spirit  of 
freesoilism  and  abolitionism,  whether  they  exhibit  themselves  here 
at  home  or  in  Washington.  Our  old  Senator  of  thirty  years  stand 
ing,  'he  who  is  known  in  Europe  and  America'  and  who  will  be 
known  if  his  own  account  of  things  proves  true  to  'posterity'  is 


italics  in  this  paragraph  are  mine. 


136  THE  REPEAL  OF 

the   author  of  all  the   doubts   and   misgivings  as  to  my   position 
upon  this  question. 

"Permit  me  now  to  ask  what  has  this  distinguished  personage 
who  has  been  Senator  from  Missouri  for  so  long  a  time  done  upon 
this  subject?  What  has  he  done  toward  organizing  and  settling 
the  Nebraska  Territory  ?  What  has  he  ever  attempted  to  do  ? 
Did  he  ever  introduce  a  bill  to  organize  a  government  or  to  ex 
tinguish  the  Indian  titles  in  that  Territory?  If  he  did,  when  and 
where  ?  He  has  only  been  absent  from  the  Senate  since  the  fourth 
of  March,  1851,  not  quite  twenty-seven  months.  What  has  filled 
him  so  brimful  with  fiery  zeal  and  hot  haste?  What  has  induced 
him  to  make  assertions  which  he  knew  not  to  be  true  as  to  the 
opinions  and  actions  of  myself  and  others?  ....  Duty  to  him 
self  and  the  State  he  in  part  represents  should  have  called  forth 
....  under  other  circumstances  than  those  which  now  surround 
him  an  exhibition  of  this  latter-day  zeal  upon  this  and  kindred 
subjects.  This  was  necessary  to  prevent  his  sincerity  being  now 
doubted  and  his  motives  impugned."  189 

On  the  sixth  of  August,  at  Parkville,  Mr.  Atchi- 
son  explained  his  position  with  much  more  amplifi 
cation: 

"Colonel  Benton,  Mr.  Webster,  Mr.  Clay  and  others  told 
us  that  the  Act  of  1820,  commonly  called  the  Missouri  Compro 
mise,  excluded  slavery  from  this  Territory  and  Congress  had  the 
power  to  pass  such  a  law,  and  that  it  was  constitutional,  and  so 
forth.  Benton  in  one  of  his  speeches  declared  that  there  was 
no  slave  territory  belonging  to  the  United  States;  that  Mexican 
law  excluded  slavery  from  the  territory  acquired  by  the  treaty 
with  that  Republic  at  the  close  of  the  war;  that  the  Missouri 
Compromise  excluded  slavery  from  all  the  Louisiana  country  north 
of  36°  30'  not  included  in  the  limits  of  the  State  of  Missouri 
(this  very  Territory  of  Nebraska).  Was  it  then  strange  that  I 
should  hesitate  about  sustaining  Mr.  Hall's  bill?  Missouri  is  and 
always  has  been  a  slave  State.  A  large  portion  of  my  constituents 
are  slaveholders.  Could  it  be  expected  that  I  would  be  very 


!89  See  also  editorial  in  the  Missouri  Republican,  January  31,  1854. 


THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  137 

anxious  about  organizing  a  Territory  from  which  a  large  portion 
of  my  constituents  would  be  excluded?  The  State  of  Missouri 
is  now  bounded  on  two  sides  by  free  States;  organize  this  Terri 
tory  as  free  territory  then  we  are  bounded  on  three  sides  by 
free  States  or  Territories. 

"What  would  be  the  effect  upon  slave  property  in  Missouri 
and  in  this  neighborhood  it  requires  no  prophet  to  tell.  It  is  a 
problem  not  difficult  to  solve.  The  free  States  have  a  pious  and 
philanthropic  class  of  men  who  observe  the  'higher  law'  and  whose 
duty  it  is  to  attend  to  other  people's  business  and  think  that  they 
are  rendering  God  good  service  in  stealing  their  neighbors'  negroes. 
But,  fellow  citizens,  that  I  may  be  clearly  understood  in  relation 
to  this  point,  /  now  declare  to  you_jhat_I  wilj_nojjvotej[or^a  bill 
to  organize  a  government  for  the  Territory  of  Nebraska  unless 
that  bill  leaves  the  Territory  open  for  settlement  to  all  the  people 
of  the  United  States  without  restriction  or  limitation;  open  to  the 
slaveholder  as  well  as  to  the  non-slaveholder.  19°  I  will  vote  for 
no  bill  that  directly  or  indirectly  makes  a  discrimination  between 
the  citizens  of  the  different  States  of  this  Union,  North  or  South, 
slave  or  non-slaveholding ;  no  bill  that  strikes  at  the  equality  of 
the  States  of  this  Confederacy 

"At  the  last  session  of  Congress  an  appropriation  was  made 
to  enable  the  President  to  negotiate  treaties  with  the  Indians  for 
the  purpose  of  obtaining  their  consent  to  the  organization  of  a 
government  and  to  purchase  their  lands  for  settlement  by  the  white 
men.  This  was  the  object  of  the  appropriation  and  I  voted  for 
it;  and  I  doubt  not  but  that  the  object  of  the  appropriation  will  be 
carried  out  by  the  President  before  the  meeting  of  the  next  Con 
gress.  If  so,  then  I  will  vote  for  and  use  all  the  influence  I  have 
in  favor  of  a  bill  to  organize  a  government  and  to  promote  its 
settlement  upon  the  principles  I  have  indicated 19° 

"When  Nebraska  shall  be  settled  and  its  people  desire  to  enter 
this  Union  as  a  State,  it  is  the  right  of  the  people  to  form  their 
institutions  to  suit  themselves.  They  may  adopt  slavery  as  one 
of  their  institutions  or  they  may  exclude  it,  as  they  shall  deem 
expedient.  If  it  is  the  will  of  a  majority  of  the  people  of  the 


!90  The  italics  are  mine. 


138  THE  REPEAL  OF 

Territory  at  that  time  to  exclude  slavery,  be  it  so.  It  is  their 
business,  not  ours.  Let  them  present  us  with  a  republican  form 
of  government,  this  is  all  that  shall  be  asked.  I  would  vote  its 
admission  into  the  Union.  The  Territories  of  the  United  States, 
preparatory  to  their  admission  into  the  Union  as  States,  have  the 
right  to  form  their  own  institutions,  as  much  so  as  States  of  the 
Union  have  a  right  to  change  their  institutions. 

"No  person  will  deny  the  right  of  South  Carolina  to  abolish 
slavery.  None  will  deny  the  right  of  Massachusetts  to  establish 
slavery.  The  Territories  have  the  same  right  when  they  form 
their  Constitutions  and  ask  admission  into  this  Union  as  States.  191 

"Now  am  I  understopd?  If  there  is  anything  doubtful  in 
my  position,  I  will  thank  any  gentleman  to  catechize  me  that  I 
may  be  clearly  and  distinctly  understood,  for  I  desire  upon  this 
question  to  be  understood.  I  know  that  my  opinion  upon  this 
subject  has  been  by  some  misunderstood  and  others  misrepresented. 
No  person  questions  me?  Then  I  am  understood " 

The  reader  has  doubtless  observed  that  in  none 
of  the  foregoing  declarations  has  Senator  Atchison 
directly  and  frankly  championed  the  repeal  of  the 
Missouri  Compromise.  No  pledge  has  been  given 
that  he  will  endeavor  at  the  coming  session  of  Con 
gress  to  accomplish  the  Repeal.  All  his  declarations 
bearing  upon  this  point  are  made  with  a  certain  res 
ervation  ;  all  are  in  the  negative  form,  and  from  them 
no  such  pledge  can  with  perfect  certainty  be  inferred. 
It  becomes  important  therefore  to  know  how  these 
declarations  were  understood  in  Missouri  at  the  time. 
No  direct  evidence  has  been  found  showing  how 
Atchison's  friends  regarded  them,  but  under  all  the 
circumstances  it  is  not  unfair  to  accept  the  interpre- 


!91  Compare  the  phraseology  of  this  and  the  preceding  paragraph  with 
the  language  used  by  Douglas  upon  the  same  point  in  his  speeches  of 
January  30,  and  May  25,  1854;  Cong.  Globe,  xxviii,  Ft.  i,  275,  941,  and 
ibid.,  xxxi,  755  if. 


THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  139 

tation  placed  upon  them  by  the  leading  Benton  news 
papers. 

The  following  editorial,  taken  from  the  St. 
Joseph  Gazette,™2  a  Benton  organ,  is  probably  the 
first  public  statement  in  which  the  significance  of  the 
issues  between  Benton  and  Atchison  over  Nebraska 
is  directly  associated  with  the  compromise  measures 
of  1850  and  with  the  national  party  platforms  of 
1852.  The  charges  here  brought  against  Atchison, 
it  will  be  seen,  do  not  differ  essentially  from  those 
generally  brought  against  Douglas  for  his  supposed 
origination  of  the  Repeal. 

".  .  .  .  Atchison  says  he  will  never  vote  for  a  bill  to  or 
ganize  the  Territory  without  the  restrictive  clause  upon  the  subject 
of  slavery  is  removed,  or  in  other  words  without  virtually  re 
pealing  the  Missouri  Compromise.  The  only  safety  to  the  slave 
States  consists  in  our  opinion  in  a  rigid  adherence  to  this  measure. 
How  could  Gen.  Atchison  carry  out  the  policy  he  now  advocates 
without  disturbing  the  Compromise  measures  and  opening  afresh 
the  slavery  excitement  which  has  agitated  this  Union  from  its 
circumference  to  its  center.  Have  not  Democrats  been  denounced 
as  agitators  of  the  slavery  question  for  endeavoring  to  repeal  the 
Jackson  resolutions?  How  then  can  Gen.  Atchison  escape  the 
same  charge  and  that  too,  by  his  own  friends  when  he  is  advocating 
the  repeal  of  that  restrictive  clause  referred  to!  Are  we  not  all 
as  Democrats  pledged  to  abide  by  the  Compromise  measures  ?  But 
Gen.  Atchison  now  says  he  will  not  vote  for  a  bill  organizing 
Nebraska  without  the  restrictive  clause  on  slavery  is  removed. 
Then  he  is  unwilling  to  abide  by  the  settlement  of  that  question 
which  is  now  recognized  as  the  law  of  the  land.  Who,  then 
we  ask,  are  the  slavery  agitators?  Let  Gen.  Atchison  and  those 
who  advocate  his  doctrines  answer.  For  our  part  we  are  content 
to  let  that  question  rest  forever." 


192  Quoted  in  the  Jefferson  Inquirer,  October  12,  1853. 


140  THE  REPEAL  OF 

A  few  days  later  the  following  appeared  in  the 
Jefferson  Inquirer:  193 

"The  Union  is  to  be  again  threatened  with  dissolution,  if  a 
territorial  government  is  organized  in  that  Territory,  the  Missouri 
Compromise  is  to  be  disregarded,  and  Nebraska  is  to  be  kept  out 
of  the  Union!  unless  Congress  will  first  establish  slavery  in  the 

Territory  and  then  deny  to  the  people  the  right  to  reject  it 

Senator  Atchison  ....  declares  his  opposition  to  the  organiza 
tion  of  the  territorial  government  of  Nebraska  unless  Congress 
'will  repeal  the  slavery  restriction/  or  in  other  words  set  aside 
the  Missouri  Compromise!  What  becomes  of  the  Baltimore 
platform  and  the  Compromise  acts  when  California  was  admitted 
to  the  Union,  and  why  does  Senator  Atchison  now  seek  to  renew 
the  slavery  agitation?  ....  No  matter  for  consistency  or  for 
right.  The  organization  and  admission  of  Nebraska  must  be 
opposed  because  Colonel  Benton  and  his  friends  favor  it." 

The  Benton  newspapers,  it  must  be  admitted, 
endeavored  to  put  the  worst  possible  interpretation 
upon  the  words  and  declarations  of  Senator  Atchison. 
In  view  of  all  the  evidence,  however,  it  is  difficult 
to  believe  that  they  did  any  violence  to  his  real  in 
tentions  or  to  the  real  significance  of  his  utterances. 
There  can  be  no  mistaking  the  most  important  issue 
between  these  two  warring  factions  in  Missouri  in 
the  summer  and  autumn  of  1853  :  that  issue  is  nothing 
less  than  the  retention  or  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise  in  connection  with  the  organization  of 
a  territorial  government  in  Nebraska  at  the  next  ses 
sion  of  Congress. 

At  the  close  of  the  32d  Congress  and  the  re 
opening  of  the  senatorial  contest  in  the  spring  of  1853 
we  saw  194  good  reason  to  predict  that  if  the  repeal 


193  October  22,  1853, 

194  See   page   106. 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  141 

of  the  Missouri  Compromise  should  ever  appear 
feasible,  if  upon  its  consummation  his  political  career 
depended,  Senator  Atchison  would  be  found  actively 
supporting  it.  We  have  now  seen  that  Benton's  be 
wildering  aggressiveness  in  forcing  to  the  front  the 
question  of  the  Pacific  railroad  and  a  territorial  gov 
ernment  for  Nebraska,  in  misrepresenting  Atchison's 
position  regarding  both  of  these  measures,  in  stren 
uously  endeavoring  to  undermine  Atchison's  political 
support  by  proclaiming  the  right  of  immediate  settle 
ment  in  Nebraska  —  had  placed  Senator  Atchison  in 
a  most  embarrassing  position,  a  position  in  which  his 
very  political  life  seemed  at  stake.  In  this  crisis  and 
in  order  to  extricate  himself  Senator  Atchison  as 
sumed  the  dangerous  role  of  champion  of  the  repeal 
of  the  Missouri  Compromise  and  pledged  his  support 
to  the  Nebraska  territorial  bill  only  on  the  condition 
that  the  Compromise  restriction  should  be  repealed. 
Thus  the  issues  between  these  aspirants  for  the  Sen 
atorial  seat  arise  out  of  subjects  peculiarly  within  the 
scope  of  Congressional  legislation.  It  seems  safe  to 
predict,  therefore,  that  the  contest  will  appear  in 
Washington  in  some  form  or  other,  since  there  alone 
can  the  issues  be  finally  determined.  Before,  how 
ever,  taking  up  the  Washington  aspects  of  the  Mis 
souri  Senatorial  fight  some  attention  must  be  given 
to  other  agencies  at  work  in  1853  seeking  to  compel 
action  by  the  next  Congress  respecting  the  estab 
lishment  of  a  territorial  government  for  Nebraska. 


CHAPTER  V 

The  Provisional  Government  of  Nebraska— Rev.  Thomas  Johnson 
—The  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs  Visits  Nebraska— Charges 
against  Him. 

Mention  has  been  made  in  the  preceding  chapter 
of  the  interest  with  which  the  Wyandott  Indians 
liying  near  the  confluence  of  the  Kansas  and  Missouri 
rivers  had  watched  the  great  emigration  through  the 
Nebraska  country  and  the  subsequent  discussions  of 
the  Pacific  railway;  also  of  the  efforts  of  Mr.  Guthrie 
as  their  representative,  to  force  upon  the  attention  of 
the  second  session  of  the  32d  Congress  the  subject  of 
a  territorial  government.  If,  as  Colonel  Benton  kept 
publicly  reiterating,  the  creation  of  a  territorial  gov 
ernment  in  Nebraska  was  a  step  necessary,  prelim 
inary  and  indispensable  to  the  construction  of  the 
railway  along  the  "central"  route,  it  was  clearly  to 
their  interest  to  persevere  in  active  steps  looking  to 
ward  the  early  establishment  of  such  government. 
The  "central"  route  would  pass  directly  through 
their  lands,  and  hence  would  greatly  enhance  all 
values  there.  In  this  direction,  therefore,  lay  their 
chief  interest  in  the  creation  of  the  territorial  gov 
ernment.195  A  consideration  of  more  immediate  con- 


195  With  the  Wyandotts,  the  chief  grounds  of  interest  in  the  territorial 
question  were,  at  the  beginning,  quite  unconnected  with  the  subject  of 
slavery.  It  was  not  long,  however,  before  that  subject  entered  to  compli 
cate  matters. 


THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  143 

cern  related  to  the  recent  passage  by  Congress  of  an 
Act  authorizing  the  President  to  enter  into  negotia 
tions  with  the  Indians  in  Nebraska  for  the  sale  of 
their  lands,  and  making  an  appropriation  for  that 
purpose.196  From  the  adjournment  of  Congress  in 
March,  1853,  until  July  of  that  year,  we  have  no  very 
clear  evidence  of  what  took  place  among  them. 

Up  to  this  time,  apparently,  the  Wyandotts  had 
not  only  taken  the  initiative  among  the  inhabitants 
of  Nebraska,  but  they  seem  to  have  acted  through 
out  without  the  cooperation  or  assistance  of  the 
other  emigrant  tribes  living  near  them.  But  a$ 
the  magnitude  of  the  undertaking  became  more  evi 
dent,  they  realized  the  need  and  importance  of  enlist 
ing  the  active  interest  of  the  other  emigrant  tribes 
who  might  also  profit  by  the  construction  of  the 
Pacific  railroad.  Steps  were  accordingly  taken  by 
the  Wyandott  leaders  in  the  spring  and  early  summer 
of  1853  to  rekindle  the  council  fire  of  the  old  north 
eastern  league  among  the  emigrant  tribes  in  Ne 
braska.  Out  of  this  movement  arose  the  organization 
of  the  "Provisional  Government  of  Nebraska," 
which  was  immediately  followed  by  the  first  struggle 
on  Kansas  soil  between  the  pro-slavery  and  anti- 
slavery  parties. 

In  May,  1853,  an  informal  meeting  of  the  chief 
men  among  the  Wyandotts  and  the  other  emigrant 
tribes  in  Nebraska,  located  upon  the  borders  of  Mis 
souri  and  Iowa,  was  held  for  the  purpose  of  seriously 
considering  their  interests.197  It  was  decided  to  issue 


196  See   pages   90,   91. 

19?  Kan.  Hist.  Soc.   Trans.,  vi,  104.     Connelley's  Prov.   Gov.t  30. 


144  THE  REPEAL  OF 

a  call  for  a  convention  of  delegates  from  the  various 
emigrant  tribes  to  meet  early  in  August  at  the  Coun 
cil  House  of  the  Wyandott  Nation,  with  the  object 
of  effecting  the  organization  of  a  provisional  govern 
ment  for  Nebraska.  For  some  reason  not  definitely 
known,  the  date  of  the  meeting  was  changed  to  the 
twenty-sixth  of  July. 

The  call  for  this  convention  was  issued  after 
Colonel  Benton  had  begun  to  advocate  publicly  the 
immediate  settlement  of  Nebraska  by  white  men.  It 
appears,  furthermore,  that  Benton  was  advised  of  the 
contemplated  convention,  and  approved  it.  There 
is  also  slight  ground  for  believing  that  he  had  even 
urged  it  himself.198 

The  Convention  met  on  July  26. 199     A  long 

198  Such  a  course  on  his  part  would  have  been  quite  in  keeping  with 
his  public  utterances  in  the  summer  of  1853.     Moreover,  it  is  very  evident 
that  the  interest  and  aims  of  the  Wyandotts  and  of  Colonel  Benton,  if  they 
did  not  exactly  coincide,  at  all  events  tended  strongly  to  converge.  —  Kan. 
Hist.   Soc.   Trans.,  vi,   105;    Connelley's  Prov.   Gov.,  31. 

"The  politicians  resident  in  Nebraska,"  wrote  the  editor  of  the  Bloom- 
ington  (Mo.)  Republican  after  a  visit  to  the  Wyandotts  in  the  fall  of  1853, 
"cannot  keep  out  of  Missouri  nor  the  Missouri  politicians  out  of  Nebraska. 
The  Indians  seem  to  understand  Col.  Benton,  if  Missouri  does  not.  They 
are  divided,  one  party  supports  freesoilism,  while  the  other  is  opposed  to  it; 
and  both  agree  that  the  Colonel  is  the  friend  and  supporter  of  freesoil  and 

is  upon  good  terms  with  the  Abolitionists "  —  Quoted  in  the  Iowa 

State  Gazette,  November  9,  1853. 

199  "We  are  informed  that  one  of  the  gentlemen  present  at  this  meet 
ing  reports  the  whole  number  who  took  part  in  it  at  fifteen.     These  were 
persons  residing  in  the  Territory  under  permits  as  traders,  or  as  connected 

with  the  mission We  do  not  therefore  look  upon  this  meeting  as  a 

fact  having  any  important  bearing  on  the  question  of  organization.     Or 
ganization  is  nevertheless  impatiently  desired  by   a  portion  of  the  people 

of  Missouri  and  should  not  be  delayed  beyond  another  Congress " 

National  Intelligencer,  August  16,  1853,  quoting  St.  Louis  Intelligencer. 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  145 

series  of  resolutions  was  adopted.200  One  was  "ex 
pressive  of  the  Convention's  preference  of  the  Great 
Central  Rail  Road  Route;"  another,  of  its  regret  at 
the  failure  of  the  last  Congress  to  establish  a  terri 
torial  government  in  Nebraska.  This  subject  was 
earnestly  recommended  to  the  consideration  of  the 
next  Congress,  and  the  earliest  possible  passage  of 
such  an  act  was  urged. 

Though  these  resolutions  contain  no  mention  of 
slavery,  they  were  not  passed  without  a  discussion 
which  revealed  sharp  differences  of  opinion  regard 
ing  that  subject  and  brought  out  the  fact  that  there 
were  delegates  present  who  sympathized  with  the 
pro-slavery,  or  Atchisonian,  party  in  Missouri.  Thus 
in  the  resolutions  as  originally  proposed,  "a  pro 
found  sense  of  obligation  to  Hon.  Thomas  H.  Ben- 
ton  and  to  Willard  P.  Hall  of  Missouri"  led  to  the 
inclusion  of  a  resolution  expressive  of  grateful  ac 
knowledgment  "for  their  generous  and  patriotic 
exertions  in  support  of  the  rights  and  interests  of  our 
Territory."  201 

"One  speaker  'was  opposed  to  inserting  Benton's  name,  for 
it  would  damn  any  measure  in  Congress.'  This  was  Gen.  Whit- 
field  202  who  thought  the  meeting  premature,  that  the  Indian  title 
should  be  first  extinguished.  He  was  the  agent  of  the  Pottawat- 
omies.  Some  of  the  speakers  advocated  the  early  organization 

200  The  resolutions  are  printed  in  full  in  Kan.  Hist.  Soc.   Trans.,  vi, 
107-108,  and  in  Connelley's  Prov.  Gov.t  43  ff. 

201  This  is  the  account  given  in  the  Parkville  Luminary,  quoted  in  the 
Missouri  Republican,  August  8,    1853;    see   also  the   New  York    Tribune, 
November  2,  1853,  quoting  the  Cleveland  Forest  City. 

202  j.  \y.  Whitfield,  a  prominent  figure  in  the  later  Kansas  struggles; 
elected  Delegate  to  Congress  from  Kansas,  by  the  pro-slavery  party,  July 
23,  1854. 


146  THE  REPEAL  OF 

of  the  Territory  and  its  settlement  as  the  means  to  securing  the 
Pacific  railroad. 

"Gen.  Whitfield  again  spoke  with  much  force;  that  he  was 
for  compromise  according  to  the  late  act;  that  the  Missouri  Com 
promise  ought  to  be  repealed]  that  men  from  all  parts  of  the 
Union  ought  to  have  the  privilege  of  bringing  their  property  with 
them,  from  a  negro  to  a  spring  jenny;  he  said  they  might  cry  no 
agitation  when  slavery  was  excluded  by  the  Missouri  Compromise; 
for  his  part  he  should  agitate  and  agitate  until  Southern  men  were 
permitted  to  take  their  slaves  to  the  Territory]  he  did  not  care 
personally  whether  it  was  finally  made  a  slave  State  or  not. 

"Mr.  Abelard  Guthrie  spoke  in  a  quiet  and  sensible  manner. 
He  was  opposed  to  agitation ;  wanted  a  territorial  government 
organized  like  Utah  without  any  allusion  to  the  subject  of  slavery; 
and  then  have  the  polls  open  and  let  the  citizens  themselves  decide 
the  question  pro  or  con ;  203  and  like  every  other  good  citizen  he 
was  willing  to  abide  the  decision  of  the  majority. 

"Rev.  Thomas  Johnson  moved  to  strike  out  the  fifth  resolu 
tion  [the  one  in  which  reference  was  made  to  Benton  and  Hall's 
efforts  in  behalf  of  the  territory].  He  was  opposed  to  personal 
matters  in  this  Convention ;  in  praising  two  men  they  had  perhaps 
left  out  others  equally  meritorious;  he  was  opposed  to  furnishing 
a  hobby  for  any  man  to  ride  on ;  .  .  .  .  thought  these  names 
would  prejudice  their  interests;  that  it  was  bad  policy  to  say 
the  least. 

"Gen.  Whitfield  was  also  opposed  to  the  resolution;' he  did 
not  want  the  railroad  or  Nebraska  bill  to  'tote  any  man  through, 
or  any  man  to  tote  them  through.' 

"Mr.  Guthrie  said  he  knew  that  when  the  bill  in  the  last 
Congress  had  few  friends  that  Mr.  Hall  and  Col.  Benton  used 
untiring  exertions  to  carry  it  through;  that  Nebraska  owed  them 
a  debt  of  gratitude;  he  wanted  the  Convention  to  take  a  stand 
above  personal  prejudices;  where  shall  we  look  for  friends  if  we 
prove  ungrateful  and  refuse  to  acknowledge  meritorious  services. 

"The  friends  of  the  resolution  appeared  willing  in  order  to 


203  The  italics  are  mine. 


THE   MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  147 

appease  the  opposition  to  let  them  lay  it  on  the  table  without  voting 
to  sustain  it."  204 

Other  resolutions  authorized  the  calling  of  an 
election  of  a  Delegate  to  Congress  on  the  second 
Tuesday  of  October,  the  nomination  of  a  Delegate 
by  the  Convention  then  in  session,  and  the  immediate 
election  by  the  Convention  of  "a  provisional  gov 
ernor,  a  provisional  secretary  of  state  and  a  council 
of  three  persons."  William  Walker205  was  there 
upon  elected  Provisional  Governor,  G.  I.  Clark,  Sec 
retary  of  the  Territory,  and  O.  C.  Miller,  Isaac 
Mundy  and  M.  R.  Walker,  Councilmen;  and  the 
Convention  nominated  Mr.  Abelard  Guthrie  as  can 
didate  for  Delegate  to  Congress.  Rev.  Thomas 
Johnson  was  also  nominated,  but  at  the  time  he  de 
clined  to  run  as  an  opposition  candidate. 

On  the  first  day  of  August,  1 853,  Governor  Walk 
er  issued  his  proclamation  for  the  election  of  a  Ter 
ritorial  Delegate,  to  be  held  on  the  second  Tuesday 
in  October,  and  two  hundred  copies  of  the  proclama 
tion  were  printed  for  circulation  throughout  the  Ter 
ritory.206  A  few  days  afterwards,  another  Conven- 

204  The  Missouri  Republican,  in  commenting  upon  the  account  given 
above,  said:     "We  understand  indeed  that  this  Convention  was  composed 
of  about  a  dozen  individuals  of  the  territory,  and  that  it  was  managed  by 
one  or  two  persons.     It  will  only  make  work  for  the  President." 

205  Kan.   Hist.   Soc.    Trans.,   vi,    107   if,    and   Connelley's  Prov.    Gov., 
33  ff.     Walker  was  at  this  time  head  chief  of  the  Wyandotts,  and  the  most 
influential  man  in  the  tribe.     After  the  War  of  1812  he  was  for  some  years 
the  private  secretary  of  General   Cass.     He  was  an  ardent  Democrat,  of 
pro-slavery  sympathies,  and  was  a  member  of  the  Lecompton  constitutional 
convention.     Sketches  of  Walker,  and  the  other  men  mentioned  in  the  text, 
may  be  found  in  Connelley's  Prov.   Gov. 

206  This  proclamation  is  in  Connelley's  Prov.   Gov.,  47,  and  the  Na 
tional   Intelligencer,    August    25,    1853.     It    was    issued    two    days    before 


148  THE  REPEAL  OF 

tion  was  called  at  Kickapoo  on  the  twentieth  of  Sep 
tember.  Mr.  Thomas  Johnson  was  again  nominated, 
and  yielding  to  the  wishes  of  his  friends,  became  a 
candidate  for  Delegate  in  opposition  to  Guthrie.207 

Atchison  wrote  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  regarding  the  right  of  white 
men  to  settle  in  Nebraska  without  further  action  by  Congress. 

207  Governor  Walker's  "Notes  on  the  History  of  Nebraska,"  in  Connel- 
ley's  Prov.  Gov.,  58.  "Abelard  Guthrie  was  put  forward  by  friends  of 
Thomas  H.  Benton;  Rev.  Thomas  Johnson  by  friends  of  David  R.  Atchi 
son." —  Wilder's  dnnals  of  Kansas,  31;  see  also  N.  Y.  Tribune,  November 
2,  and  November  7,  1853.  The  following  uncomplimentary  sketch  of  Rev. 
Thomas  Johnson  is  found  in  Phillips's  Conquest  of  Kansas,  16-17:  "Close 
to  the  frontier  of  Missouri,  and  within  a  few  miles  of  Westport,  stands 
one  of  the  oldest  missions  in  the  [Nebraska]  Territory,  the  celebrated 
'Shawnee  Mission'  of  the  Methodist  Church  South.  Three  sections  of  the 
very  finest  land  were  granted  by  the  Shawnees  to  this  mission;  besides 
which,  no  inconsiderable  portion  of  Government  money  and  percentage  on 
the  Indian  annuities  have  been  expended  in  erecting  three  or  four  massive 
and  extensive,  but  taste-less  and  filthy  looking,  brick  buildings,  and  in 
converting  those  three  sections  of  fertile  Indian  land  into  a  well-improved 
and  beautiful  farm,  which  I  have  heard  estimated  worth  sixty  thousand 
dollars.  In  the  progress  of  events,  and  by  a  system  of  management  which 
I  cannot  comprehend,  much  less  explain,  two  sections  of  this  farm,  con 
taining  many  of  the  best  improvements,  have  fallen  into  the  hands  of  the 
present  head  of  the  Mission,  the  Rev.  Thomas  Johnson. 

"Some  twenty  years  ago  when  this  worthy  came  to  Kansas,  he  was, 
as  I  have  been  told,  'not  worth  a  blanket.'  By  'breaking  the  bread  of  life' 
to  others,  he  seems  haply  to  have  acquired  a  reasonable  portion  of  the 
baser,  or  'of  the  earth  earthy'  bread  himself The  Rev.  Tom  John 
son  is  a  western  man.  Vulgar,  illiterate  and  coarse,  I  have  heard  his 
voice  ring  through  the  dingy  brick  wall  of  the  Shawnee  Mission  in  prayer, 
his  style  being  characterized  chiefly  by  extreme  western  provincialisms  and 
very  bad  grammar.  A  violent  pro-slavery  partisan,  he  has  been  a 
useful  tool  in  his  way.  His  name  may  be  found  figuring  in  some  of  the 
most  violent  of  the  pro-slavery  partisan  meetings "  A  more  com 
plimentary  sketch  is  given  by  Mr.  Connelley  in  his  Provisional  Govern 
ment,  40  n:  "Rev.  Thomas  Johnson  was  born  in  Virginia,  July  n,  1802. 
He  was  assassinated  in  his  own  home  in  Kansas,  near  Westport,  Mo., 
January  2,  1865.  He  was  sent  by  the  M.  E.  Church  to  preach  to  the 
Shawnees  in  the  'Indian  Territory'  in  1829.  After  laboring  here  for  some 
time,  he  was  compelled  to  abandon  his  work  on  account  of  poor  health, 
and  he  then  moved  to  Fayette,  Mo.  In  1847  he  was  prevailed  upon  to 


THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  149 

The  Kickapoo  Convention  also  adopted  a  series 
of  resolutions,  the  most  important  of  which  must 
have  been  inspired  by  some  one  in  close  touch  with 
the  leaders  of  the  Atchisonian  party  in  Missouri: 208 

"Resolution  I.  That  the  growing  interest  of  the  Territory 
seems  to  demand  the  extinguishment  of  the  present  Indian  titles 
and  that  we  are  highly  gratified  to  see  that  the  General  Govern 
ment  is  taking  active  steps  to  consummate  this  most  desired  object. 

"2.  That  although  we  earnestly  desire  and  ask  for  a  speedy 
organization,  nevertheless  we  deem  it  imprudent  to  establish  a 
territorial  government  until  after  the  titles  of  the  present  owners 
of  the  soil  are  extinguished,  believing  as  we  do,  that  the  Indians 
have  certain  rights  guaranteed  to  them  by  the  Government,  which 
must  be  respected. 

"3.  That  we  fully  concur  in  the  views  expressed  by  Colonel 
Manypenny,  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs,  in  regard  to  the 
present  settlement  by  the  whites. 

"4.  That  we  know  no  North,  no  South,  no  East,  no  West, 
and  desire  the  organization  of  a  territorial  government  without 
any  restriction  but  having  due  regard  to  the  interest  of  every 
portion  of  our  glorious  Union. 

"5.  That  we  deem  it  expedient  that  we  should  be  represented 
in  Washington  this  winter  and  that  we  do  in  Convention  assembled 


resume  his  work  in  the  Shawnee  Mission  Schools.  From  this  time  until  his 
death  he  was  prominent  in  the  councils  of  the  Price-Atchison  Democracy 
of  Missouri  in  their  efforts  to  introduce  slavery  into  Nebraska  and  Kansas. 
He  was  elected  President  of  the  first  Territorial  Council  of  Kansas  Ter 
ritory,  in  1855.  This  was  the  'Upper  House'  of  the  Legislature  that  enacted 
the  'Bogus  Laws.'  ....  Mr.  Johnson  was  a  good  man.  The  cause  which 
he  believed  a  holy  one  was  in  fact  a  bad  one  and  was  hastened  to  destruc 
tion  by  the  madness  of  its  advocates.  His  belief  in  its  righteousness  is  not 
surprising,  for  it  had  been  instilled  into  his  mind  from  infancy.  He  did 
what  he  believed  to  be  right.  He  was  a  true  and  humble  Christian  and  an 
eloquent  and  earnest  minister  of  the  Gospel."  Mr.  Connelly  refers  to 
"an  excellent  biography  of  Mr.  Johnson"  in  Andreas's  History  of  Kansas, 
300.  See  also  "The  Methodist  Missions  among  the  Indian  Tribes  in  Kan 
sas,"  by  Rev.  J.  J.  Lutz,  in  Kan.  Hist.  Soc.  Trans.,  ix,  160  ff.  and  a  descrip 
tion  of  the  Shawnee  Mission  in  Kan.  Hist.  Soc.  Trans.,  viii,  256,  333. 

208  The  resolutions  are  in  the  Missouri  Republican,  September  29,  1853. 


THE  REPEAL  OF 

nominate  a  suitable  person,  free  from  all  sectional  prejudices  and 
partialities,  having  the  true  interest  of  the  Territory  at  heart." 

The  sixth  resolution  accordingly  provided  for 
the  election  of  a  territorial  delegate  to  be  held  on  the 
same  day  fixed  by  the  Wyandott  Convention  at  its 
session  of  July  26,  the  polls  to  be  located  at  sixteen 
different  places  in  the  Territory. 

"8.  That  we  are  in  favor  of  the  immediate  construction 
of  the  Pacific  railroad  and  that  we  believe  the  organization  of  Ne 
braska  Territory  will  advance  this  great  national  work " 

Thus  the  two  rival  candidates  for  the  office  of 
Territorial  Delegate  were  standing  upon  platforms 
in  which  the  only  common  features  were  the  desire 
for  the  early  extinguishment  of  Indian  titles  in  Ne 
braska,  and  the  organization  of  a  territorial  govern 
ment  as  a  means  of  facilitating  the  construction  of 
the  Pacific  railroad.  Otherwise,  Guthrie  apparent 
ly  represented  the  Bentonian,  Johnson,  the  Atchiso- 

*  i  "       *  90Q 

man,  policies. 

The  election  of  Territorial  Delegate  took  place, 
in  accordance  with  the  proclamation  of  Governor 
Walker,  on  the  eleventh  day  of  October,  1853.  The 
votes  were  cast  in  several  different  localities  or  pre- 


209  Upon  the  subject  of  slavery,  little  was  said  in  these  resolutions, 
but  it  seemed  to  be  understood  that  the  candidate  of  the  Kickapoo  Con 
vention  represented  an  element  desiring  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Com 
promise  restriction,  and  that  the  candidate  of  the  Wyandott  Convention, 
although  opposed  to  a  reagitation  of  the  slavery  question,  was  willing  to 
go  so  far  as  to  leave  the  decision  respecting  slavery  to  the  people  who  might 
settle  the  new  Territory,  which  was  essentially  the  position  of  Mr.  Doug 
las.  In  this  .way  the  subject  of  slavery  was  thus  early  injected  into  the 
nascent  politics  of  the  embryonic  Territory.  Here  really  began  the  "strug 
gle  for  Kansas,"  even  before  the  creation  of  the  Territory.  See  the  New 
York  Tribune,  November  2,  1853,  quoting  the  Cleveland  Forest  City  and 
the  Missouri  Democrat;  and  November  7,  1853,  quoting  the  Washington 
Star. 


THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  151 

cincts.     Regarding  the  result  in  the  Wyandott  pre 
cinct,  Governor  Walker's  journal  says: 

"Tuesday,  October  u,  1853.  Attended  the  election  of  del 
egate  to  Congress,  for  Wyandott  precinct.  Fifty  one  votes  were 
polled. 

"A.    Guthrie      ....          33 
"Tom  Johnson  .          .          .          18 

"The  priesthood  of  the  M.  E.  Church  made  unusual  exer 
tions  to  obtain  a  majority  for  their  holy  brother.  Amidst  the 
exertions  of  their  obsequious  tools  it  was  apparent  that  it  was  an 
uphill  piece  of  business  in  Wyandott."  21° 

On  October  31  we  find  Governor  Walker  con 
ceding  and  explaining  the  election  of  Rev.  Mr.  John 
son,  before  the  returns  were  canvassed,  in  the  follow 
ing  entry: 

"I  suppose  we  may  safely  set  down  Thomas  Johnson's  election 
for  delegate  as  certain.  It  is  not  at  all  surprising,  when  we  look 
at  the  fearful  odds  between  the  opposing  candidates.  Mr.  Guth 
rie  had  only  his  personal  friends  to  support  him  with  their  votes 
and  influence,  while  the  former  had  the  whole  power  of  the  Fed 
eral  Government,  the  presence  and  active  support  of  the  Com 
missioner  of  Indian  Affairs,  the  military,  the  Indian  Agents,  Mis 
sionaries,  Indian  Traders,  &c.  A  combined  power  that  is  ir 
resistible."  211 

The  returns  were  canvassed  on  the  seventh  of 
November  and  "it  was  found  that  Thomas  Johnson 
of  Shawnee  had  received  a  majority  of  all  the  votes 
cast,"  and  accordingly  he  "was  declared  duly  elect 
ed."  212  On  the  following  day  the  proper  certificate 
of  election  was  issued  to  Mr.  Johnson,  by  Governor 
Walker. 


210  Connelley's  Prov.  Gov.,  38.     Kan.  Hist.  Soc.  Trans.,  vi,  109. 

211  Connelley's  Prov.  Gov.,  39.     Kan.  Hist.  Soc.  Trans.,  vi,  109.     N.  Y. 
Tribune,    Nov.    2,    1853,    quoting    the    Cleveland   Forest    City;    and    Nov. 
14,  1853. 

212  Connelley's  Prov.   Gov.,  39,  58.     Cong.  Globe,  xxviii,  Pt.  i,  75. 


THE  REPEAL  OF 

Commenting  afterwards  upon  the  proceeding  in 
reference  to  the  establishment  of  a  provisional  gov 
ernment  in  Nebraska  and  the  election  of  a  Territorial 
Delegate,  Governor  Walker  said: 

"Many  politicians  and  editors  of  the  public  journals  whose 
standard  of  political  morals  was  of  the  straitest  kind  viewed  these 
proceedings  with  decided  aversion  and  regarded  them  as  revolu 
tionary,  etc.,  mobocratic,  law-defying,  unprecedented,  illegal;  for 
getting  the  several  provisional  governments  of  California,  Oregon, 
New  Mexico,  etc. 

"It  is  here  worthy  of  remark  that  in  each  of  the  emigrant 
tribes  of  Indians  elections  were  held  and  they  voluntarily  and 
freely  participated  in  them ;  showing  that  they  anticipated  and  were 
prepared  for  the  change  in  their  political  condition  which  they 
saw  would  soon  be  wrought  out.  As  was  the  case  with  Mr. 
Guthrie  who  was  elected  delegate  the  year  previous,  Congress  being 
averse  to  a  departure  from  'the  line  of  safe  precedent,'  by  admit 
ting  delegates  from  unorganized  territories,  refused  to  admit  Mr. 
Johnson  to  a  seat  in  that  body.  The  provisional  government  of 
Nebraska  continued  in  existence  till  after  the  organization  by 
Congress  of  the  two  Territories  and  the  arrival  of  A.  H.  Reeder, 
the  first  Governor  of  Kansas."  213 

The  election  of  Mr.  Johnson  and  the  defeat  of 
Mr.  Guthrie,  their  own  candidate,  was  far  from 
pleasing  to  the  Wyandotts: 

They  "felt  outraged  by  the  action  of  the  Commissioner  of 
Indian  Affairs  but  as  their  interests  were  so  largely  in  his  hands 
they  could  do  nothing  else  than  submit  without  protest,  and  this 
they  all  did,  except  Mr.  Guthrie.  He  filed  a  contest  for  the  seat 
of  Delegate  and  vigorously  attacked  the  Commissioner  of  Indian 
Affairs  in  the  public  prints.  214  He  spent  a  portion  of  the  winter 
in  Washington  and  labored  for  the  territorial  government  of 
Nebraska  until  he  wras  convinced  that  the  slave  power  would 

213  "Notes  on  the  History  of  Nebraska,"  in  Connelley's  Prov.  Gov.,  60. 

214  Connelley's  Prov.  Gov.,  40.     Kan.  Hist.  Soc.  Trans.,  vi,  no. 


THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  153 

organize  two  Territories  and   endeavor   to  make  one  slave,   and 
permit  the  other  to  come  into  the  Union,  free."  215 


215  In  relation  to  Mr.  Guthrie's  attack  upon  Col.  Manypenny,  Gov 
ernor  Walker,  who  could  not  fairly  be  called  friendly  to  Manypenny, 
has  this  to  say  in  his  Journal,  which  shows  that  in  his  opinion  the  attack 
was  not  wholly  justifiable  or  kept  within  the  bounds  of  accuracy. 

"Saturday,  November  12,  1853. 

"Wrote  a  communication  to  Col.  Manypenny,  Commissioner  of  Indian 
Affairs,  correcting  an  error  in  a  communication  published  in  the  Missouri 
Democrat  [Bentonian]  by  Mr.  A.  Guthrie,  in  relation  to  a  speech  delivered 
by  the  former  to  the  Wyandott  Council. 

"Thursday,  January  12,  1854. 

"Reed,  two  letters  from  A.  Guthrie.  In  trouble  again.  Wants  cer 
tificates  to  prove  his  charges  against  Commissioner  Manypenny.  I  can't 
help  him  much. 

"Saturday,  January  28,   1854. 

"Reed,  an  'Ohio  State  Journal.'  This  is  the  amount  of  my  mail. 
Guthrie  out  on  Col.  Manypenny  again.  The  former,  I  fear,  will  come 
off  second  best.  He  is  imprudent  and  rash."  —  Connelley's  Prov.  Go*v.t  40. 

In  a  letter  to  the  editor  of  the  New  York  Tribune,  published  in  that 
paper,  August  9,  1856,  Mr.  Guthrie  gives  this  account  of  the  circum 
stances  connected  with  the  Convention  of  July  23,  and  the  subsequent 
election  of  a  territorial  delegate: 

"In  the  autumn  of  ....  1853,  a  convention  of  the  people  of  the 
Territory  assembled  at  Wyandotte,  and  established  a  provisional  govern 
ment  —  a  measure  first  suggested  and  the  plan  proposed  by  myself.  At 
this  convention  I  was  nominated  for  reelection.  But  a  portion  of  the 
convention  voted  and  another  convention  was  called  at  which  Mr.  Thomas 
Johnson  was  nominated  as  my  competitor.  The  Chief  of  the  Indian 
Bureau  at  Washington,  sided  both  by  money  and  personal  influence,  with 
my  opponent.  This  I  can  prove.  The  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise 
was  now  first  agitated  [in  the  Territory]  and  it  was  thought  important 
to  success  that  the  Territory  should  be  represented  by  one  favorable  to  that 
measure.  Hence  the  interference.  And  as  all  the  Indian  agents  were 
under  the  control  of  the  Government,  they  obtained  a  very  large  Indian 
vote  —  persons  who  were  not  citizens  of  the  United  States,  nor  willing  to 
become  such,  and  who  voted  against  me,  because  these  agents  told  them 
'if  they  did  not  do  so  I  would  be  elected  and  bring  them  under  the  white 
man's  laws.'  But  a  majority  of  actual  citizens  voted  for  me,  yet  the  certi 
ficate  of  election  was  given  to  my  competitor  by  the  provisional  governor. 
I  contested  the  election,  but  the  committee  on  elections,  to  whom  the  sub 
ject  was  referred,  never  came  to  any  decision  thereon.  Mr.  Johnson 
obtained  lucrative  employment  in  the  Indian  Department,  and  through  the 
instrumentality  of  Indian  treaties  made  himself  rich,  and  I  was  taken 


154  THE  REPEAL  OF 

The  allusions  to  the  Commissioner  of  Indian 
Affairs  found  in  the  last  few  pages,  require  some 
explanation.  Less  than  three  weeks 216  after  Gov 
ernor  Walker  had  issued  his  proclamation  for  the 
election  of  a  Territorial  Delegate,  Colonel  George 
W.  Manypenny,  the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Af 
fairs,  was  designated  by  the  President  to  conduct  the 
negotiations  with  the  Indians  west  of  Missouri  and 
Iowa,  contemplated  by  the  Act  of  March  3,  i853.217 
Immediately  upon  the  receipt  of  this  communication, 
the  Commissioner  left  Washington  and  "repaired  to 
the  Indian  country  to  discharge  the  preliminary  du 
ties  embraced"  in  his  instructions. 218 

The  Commissioner  entered  the  Indian  country 
on  the  second  of  September,  and  remained  there  un 
til  the  eleventh  day  of  October,  the  day  set  for  the 
election  of  Territorial  Delegate.  The  interim,  so  the 
Commissioner  stated  in  his  report,  was  occupied  "in 
visiting,  and  talking  with  various  tribes,  and  in  ob 
taining  from  all  known  sources  of  credit  within  [his] 

sick  and  have  been  on  the  verge  of  the  grave  most  of  the  time  since." 
Reprinted  in  Connelley's  Proi>.  Gov.,  80  ff. 

216  August  18,  1853.  This  was  two  days  after  Manypenny,  at  the 
request  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  had  replied  to  Atchison's  inquiry, 
regarding  the  right  to  settle  in  Nebraska.  See  pages  125-127. 

21?  Report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs,  November  9,  1853, 
in  House  Executive  Documents,  ist  Sess.,  33d  Cong.,  i,  Pt.  i,  269  ff. 
The  substance  of  this  special  report  is  embodied  in  the  general  annual 
report  of  the  Commissioner,  November  26,  1853,  ibid.,  243  ff. 

218  "This  [referring  to  Manypenny's  visit  to  the  Indian  country]  will 
be  a  measure  of  great  importance  in  its  results,  opening  the  way  to  a  legal 
occupation  of  the  Pacific  route  by  settlers,  and  giving  countenance  to  the 
squatters  who  have  already  rushed  into  the  country  without  permission. 
Its  very  natural  consequence  will  be  to  necessitate  the  passage  of  a  bill 
by  the  next  Congress  establishing  a  Territorial  Government  of  Nebraska." 
National  Intelligencer,  August  27,  1853,  quoting  the  North  American. 


THE   MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  155 

reach  such  information  as  might  be  useful  and  neces 
sary  in  forming  the  basis  of  treaties  as  contemplated 
by  the  Act  of  Congress."  219 

Accompanied  by  the  Rev.  Thomas  Johnson, 
Commissioner  Manypenny  on  the  sixth  of  Sep 
tember  paid  a  visit  to  the  Wyandotts,  was  introduced 
by  Governor  Walker,  and  made  a  short  address  to 
their  Council  then  in  session.  A  month  later  he  had 
another  interview  with  the  Council.220  Evidently 
the  Wyandotts  were  non-committal  upon  the  subject 

219  The    Commissioner's    report   of   November   26,    1853,    (249)    states 
in    more    detail    what    was    done:     "A    preliminary    visit    to    the    Indian 
country,     with     a    view     to    explore     it,     and     to    obtain     such     informa 
tion    as    would    be    useful    and    necessary    in    preparing    full    and    de 
tailed   instructions    as   to   the   terms    and   conditions   of   the   treaties   to   be 
negotiated,  was  deemed  necessary,  and  was  made  by  that  officer  [the  Com 
missioner]  in  obedience  to  his  instructions.     While  thus  engaged,  he  visited 
the  Omahas,  [a  brief  account  of  the  meeting  with  the  Omahas  and  Ottoes 
may  be  found  in  the  National  Intelligencer,  October  13,  1853],  Ottoes,  and 
Missouris,    lowas,    Sacs    and    Foxes    of    Missouri,    Kickapoos,    Delawares, 
Shawnees,  Wyandotts,  Pottawatomies,  Sacs  and  Foxes  of  the  Mississippi, 
Chippewas  of  Swan  Creek  and  Black  river,  Ottawas  of  Roche  de  Boeuf 
and  Blanchard's  fork,  Weas  and  Piankeshaws,  Kaskaskias  and  Peorias  and 
Miamies.     These  embrace  all  the  tribes  located  immediately  west  of  Mis 
souri  and  Iowa,-  except  the  bands  of  the  Quapaws,  Senecas  and  Shawnees, 
who  have  small   tracts   adjacent  to  the  southwest  corner  of  the   State  of 
Missouri,   and  who,   for  want  of  time,   the   commissioner  was   unable   to 
visit.     The  same  cause  operated  to  prevent  his  seeing  the  Pawnees,  Kan 
sas  and  Osage  Indians,  with  whom,  although  their  lands  are  not  contiguous 
to  the  boundaries  of  either  of  these  States,  it  is  desirable  that  treaties  also 
be  made,  should  a  civil  government  be  established  and  the  country  opened 
for  settlement.     The   Commissioner  held  councils  with  every  tribe  whom 
he  visited,  and  disclosed  to  them  the  object  of  his  journey  to  their  coun 
try." 

220  The  entry  in  Governor  Walker's  journal  for  this  date  reads: 
"Friday,  October  7,  1853. — 

"Attended  a  Council  called  by  the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs. 
Speeches  were  passed  between  the  parties  on  the  subject  of  the  Territorial 
organization,  [and]  selling  out  to  the  Government."  —  Connelley's  Prov. 
Gov.,  38;  Kan.  Hist.  Soc.  Trans.,  vi,  109. 


156  THE  REPEAL  OF 

of  selling  their  lands,  for  the  Commissioner  stated  in 
his  report: 

"They  advised  me  that  it  was  their  desire,  if  the  Territory  of 
Nebraska  should  be  organized,  to  make  such  changes  in  their 
civil  polity,  and  their  relations  to  the  government,  as  to  conform 
to  the  new  order  of  things  in  the  Territory;  but  did  not  give  me 
their  view's  in  relation  to  their  lands." 

Before  and  after  Colonel  Manypenny's  return 
to  Washington,  charges  which  were  given  wide  cir 
culation  began  to  be  made  by  the  Benton  press  in 
Missouri,  to  the  effect  that  while  the  Commissioner 
was  among  the  Indians  he  had  been  actively  work 
ing  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Atchison  221  and  in  sup- 

221  The  repetition  of  these  charges  was  not  confined  to  the  newspapers 
of  Missouri:  they  were  taken  up  by  the  press  in  the  eastern  States.  For 
example,  on  the  eighteenth  of  November,  1853,  the  editor  of  the  New 
York  Evening  Post,  after  alluding  to,  and  quoting,  an  explanation  of 
Colonel  Manypenny's  failure  to  extinguish  Indian  titles  in  Nebraska,  said: 
"The  inference  is  that  Mr.  Manypenny  has  allowed  himself  to  be  made  the 
instrument  of  Mr.  Atchison  in  this  matter.  He  makes  a  journey  from 
Washington  to  Nebraska  clothed  with  full  power  to  arrange  for  the  ces 
sion  of  Indian  lands;  he  finds  several  tribes  desirous  of  making  the  cession 
and  he  returns  from  his  long  journey  having  done  nothing.  When  inter 
rogated  as  to  the  cause  of  this  omission  he  puts  on  an  air  of  mystery  and 
tells  us  that  he  has  good  and  sufficient  reasons.  The  public  will  be  in  no 
mood  to  believe  in  the  validity  of  reasons  which  he  is  ashamed  to  disclose. 
The  true  reason,  there  is  every  ground  for  believing,  is  a  connection  with 
Mr.  Atchison  in  the  intrigue  to  prevent  by  any  pretense  whatever  the 
settlement  and  organization  of  Nebraska."  See  also  editorial  in  the  same 
paper,  November  15,  1853. 

On  December  21,  1853,  Senator  Atchison  wrote  to  the  editor  of  the 
Missouri  Examiner,  branding  as  false  the  charges  that  Colonel  Manypenny 
was  acting  under  "my  dictation  and  direction  in  relation  to  Indian  Affairs 
in  what  is  now  called  'Nebraska.'  ....  I  never  spoke  to  him  or 
wrote  a  line  to  him  upon  the  subject  of  Indian  affairs  in  Nebraska 
nor  did  he  write  or  speak  a  word  upon  that  subject  to  me  until  since 
my  arrival  in  Washington,  in  November  last,  except  the  answer  to 
my  letter  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  [mentioned  in  Chapter  IV].  I 
further  say  that  I  did  not  see  Colonel  Manypenny  whilst  he  was  in  the 
western  country  last  summer,  nor  did  I  send  him  any  message  or  have  the 


THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  157 

port  of  Johnson  as  the  Delegate  to  Congress;  and 
that  he  had  been  guilty  of  a  grave  breach  of  official 
duty  in  departing  from  Nebraska  without  having 
negotiated  any  treaties  with  the  Indians  for  the  re- 
linquishment  of  their  lands.  For  the  first  of  these 
charges  a  basis  seems  to  have  been  furnished  by  the 
fact  that  the  Commissioner  had  been  escorted 
through  the  Indian  country  by  Gen.  J.  W.  Whit- 
field,222  one  of  the  most  active  pro-slavery  men  in  the 
Territory,  and  by  the  fact  that  he  had  visited  the 
Wyandotts  first  in  the  company  of  Rev.  Thomas 
Johnson.  From  our  knowledge  of  Whitfield,  it  is 
not  unfair  to  assume  that  he  was  working  for  the 
success  of  Mr.  Johnson  who  appears  to  have  been  in 
close  touch  with  the  Atchisonian  faction  in  Missouri. 
This  being  true,  it  is  not  impossible  that  the  name 
of  the  Commissioner  became  identified  with  the  polit 
ical  activity  of  his  guide,  although  the  Commissioner 
himself  might  have  wholly  refrained  from  such  ac 
tivity. 

To  the  second  charge,  greater  importance  was 

least  intercourse  with  him,  directly  or  indirectly.  Indeed,  I  do  not  believe 
that  I  was  within  thirty  miles  of  him  at  any  time  during  his  visit  to  the 

Indian  country "     This  letter  is  printed  in  the  Washington  Union, 

December  23,  1853.  The  Union  makes  this  comment:  "The  letter  of 
Senator  Atchison  ....  is  an  extinguisher  on  certain  charges  therein  re 
ferred  to,  made  against  Colonel  Manypenny.  Few  of  our  public  men 
have  been  more  violently  or  unjustly  assailed  than  the  able  and  popular 
Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs.  But  these  attacks  will  prove  harmless." 
222  In  his  report  of  November  9,  1853,  the  Commissioner  said: 
"I  also  acknowledge  my  obligations  to  General  Whitfield,  the  agent 
for  the  Pottawatomies  and  Kansas  Indians,  who  was  my  travelling  com 
panion  the  greater  part  of  the  time,  for  his  good  offices  and  the  aid  and 
assistance  he  rendered  me."  See  also  the  National  Intelligencer,  October 
*3>  1853. 


158  THE  REPEAL  OF 

attached.  The  Benton  press 223  alleged  that  the  fail 
ure  of  the  Commissioner  to  negotiate  treaties  with 
the  Indians  was  due  solely  to  his  pro-slavery  sym 
pathies  224  and  his  partisanship  for  Senator  Atchison, 
who  was  opposed  to  the  immediate  settlement  of 
Nebraska,  and  hence  desired  all  possible  delay  so 
long  as  the  Missouri  Compromise  inhibition  re 
mained  in  force.  This  charge,  however,  finds  little 
support,  when  the  instructions  issued  to  the  Commis 
sioner  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  are  carefully 
examined.  From  these  it  appears  that  the  object  of 
the  Commissioner's  visit  to  Nebraska  was  not  prima 
rily  to  negotiate  treaties.  Whether  or  not  treaties 
should  be  consummated  during  that  visit  was  left  to 
the  sound  discretion  of  the  Commissioner.  Here  are 
the  instructions  upon  this  point: 225 

"It  is  believed  ....  that  much  good  will  result  from  a  pre 
liminary  visit  among  the  Indians,  and  an  exploration  of  the  country 
in  question;  and  for  this  purpose,  and  with  a  view  to  obtain  all 
the  information  necessary  to  the  preparation  of  full  and  detailed 


223  The    supporters    of    Benton    had    become    embittered    against    Col. 
Manypenny  during  the  controversy  between  Benton  and  Atchison  over  the 
legality  of  immediate  settlement  in  Nebraska.     The  position  taken  by  the 
Commissioner,   it  will   be   remembered,   was   directly   in   opposition   to   the 
claims   advanced   by   Benton   and   directly   in  support  of  the   opinions   ex 
pressed  by  Atchison. 

224  The  following  reference  to  Manypenny  occurs  in  a  letter  of  Salmon 
P.  Chase  to  E.  S.  Hamlin,  dated  Washington,  January  23,  1854:     ".    .    .    . 
I  suppose  the  Senatorial  question  decided  by  this  time.     Feeling  no  interest 
in  it,  since  no  man  can  be  elected  who  is  not  pro-slavery,  I   only  desire 
to  call  the  attention  of  the  people  to  a  much  greater  matter  [the  proposed 
repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise].     I   am  sorry  to  hear  that  you  have 
electioneered  for  Manypenny.     I  like  him  personally,  but  I  would  cut  off 
my  right  hand  sooner  than  aid  him  or  any  other  man  to  reach  a  position 

in  which   he   will   make   Ohio  the  vassal   of  the   Slave  Power " 

"Chase  Correspondence,"  in  Am.  Hist.  Assn.,  Report,  1902,  ii,  257. 

225  House  Ex.  Doc.,  ist  Sess.,  ^d  Cong.,  i,  Pt.  i,  269  ff. 


THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  159 

instructions  as  to  the  terms  and  conditions  of  the  treaties  to  be 
made,  you  are  requested  to  proceed  at  once  to  the  Indian  country 
and  discharge  this  preliminary  duty. 

''Should  you  deem  it  expedient  and  proper,  however,  to  enter 
into  any  negotiations  with  the  tribes  in  question,  or  either  of  them, 
for  the  extinguishment  of  their  title  to  the  lands  now  claimed  by 
them,  or  for  securing  their  assent  to  their  settlement  by  citizens 
of  the  United  States,  you  are  fully  authorized,  in  the  exercise  of 
a  sound  discretion,  aided  by  your  experience  in  the  management  of 
our  Indian  relations,  to  do  so." 

The  reasons  for  the  omission  to  negotiate  any 
treaties  are  explained  in  the  Commissioner's  report. 
The  explanation  is  interesting  especially  for  the  indi 
cations  of  some  of  the  effects  produced  by  Colonel 
Benton's  Cole  county  letter  and  the  subsequent  agita 
tion.  The  Commissioner  said: 

"As  I  approached  the  borders  of  the  Indian  country,  I  found 
some  of  the  people  discussing  with  considerable  warmth,  in  the 
press  and  otherwise,  the  question  whether  that  country  was  not 
then  open  to  occupation  and  settlement  by  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States;  and,  in  some  instances,  those  who  held  to  the  right 
to  settle  in  the  Indian  country  had  gone  over  to  explore  with  the 
intention  to  locate  in  it.  226  This  discussion  and  these  explora 
tions  had  a  very  unfavorable  influence  on  the  Indian  mind.  The 
Indians  were  alarmed.  Reports  reached  them  that  large  bodies 
of  white  men  were  coming  into  their  country  to  take  possession  of 
and  drive  them  from  it.  Many  of  them  were  contemplating 
the  necessity  of  defending  themselves;  and  the  proposition  was 
abroad  among  some  of  the  Indians  for  a  grand  council,  at  which 
they  should  (as  one  said  to  me)  light  up  their  fires  after  the  old 
Indian  fashion,  and  confederate  for  defence. 

"From  the  time  that  the  original  Indian  title  to  the  country 
was  extinguished,  under  the  authority  of  the  act  of  28th  May,  1830, 
and  the  tribes  transplanted  from  the  States  and  Territories  east 
of  the  Mississippi  and  located  in  it,  until  after  the  adjournment 


226  See   also  the  National  Intelligencer,  November  5,  1853. 


160  THE  REPEAL  OF 

of  the  last  Congress,  it  had  always  been  considered  a  country  set 
apart  and  dedicated  to  Indian  uses  and  purposes;  and  it  was 
equally  well  understood,  before  that  time,  that  no  person  other 
than  an  Indian  could  reside  there  except  by  permission  of  the 
Government,  and  for  a  special  purpose. 

"The  enunciation,  therefore,  of  the  opinion  that  the  country 
was  open  to  occupation  and  settlement,  at  the  time  it  was  pro 
mulgated,  was  most  unfortunate 

"I  found  it  very  difficult  to  quiet  the  Indians,  and  was  unable 
to  fully  restore  some  of  these  people  to  the  tranquil  condition  they 
were  in  before  the  discussion  of  the  subject  and  exploration  of 
their  country  commenced. 

"In  many  councils  the  effect  of  this  enunciation  was  evident; 
and  in  some  instances  I  was  unable,  while  in  council,  to  obtain 
the  calm  consideration  of  the  Indians  to  the  subject-matter  of  my 
talk,  owing  to  the  excited  state  of  their  minds,  resulting  from  the 
apprehension  that  their  country  was  about  to  be  taken  from  them 
without  their  consent,  and  without  any  consideration  being  paid 
them  for  it;  and  some  even  supposed  that  the  object  of  my  visit 
was  to  favor  such  a  design. 

"As  I  progressed  in  my  journey,  and  the  councils  which  I 
held  with  various  tribes  increased  in  number,  I  was  happy  to  per 
ceive  a  better  state  of  feeling  —  a  willingness  to  listen,  to  be 
advised,  and  an  assurance  of  confidence  and  dependence  on  their 
great  father,  and  a  determination  to  receive  favorably  the  message 
I  bore  from  him  to  them 

"Every  tribe  with  whom  I  held  council,  with  the  exception 
of  the  Weas  and  Piankeshaws,  the  Peorias  and  Kaskaskias  (who 
own  only  256,000  acres),  and  the  Shawnees,  refused  to  dispose 
of  any  portion  of  their  lands,  as  their  first  response  to  my  talk. 
The  small  tribes  above  named  proposed  at  once  to  dispose  of  the 
most  of  their  land,  and  intimated  that  if  they  could  make  satis 
factory  arrangements  for  a  home  they  would  sell  the  whole  of  it. 

"With  several  of  the  tribes  I  could  have  concluded  treaties, 
but  only  on  condition  that  each  should  reserve  for  a  tribal  home 
that  part  of  their  land  adjoining  the  States.  There  are  grave 


THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  l6l 

objections  to  such  a  policy,  involving  alike  the  interests  and  peace 
of  the  citizens  of  the  States,  of  those  who  may  become  residents 
of  the  Territory,  and  of  the  Indians  themselves.  From  the 
disposition  manifested  by  some  Indians  of  influence  to  acquiesce 
in  the  views  submitted  to  them  on  this  point,  I  was  of  the  opinion 
that,  with  these  tribes,  treaties  on  terms  more  favorable  to  the 
Government,  and  with  provisions  more  consistent  with  their  per 
manent  welfare  and  happiness,  could  be  made  after  they  had  time 
for  discussion  and  reflection,  which  some  of  them  requested  should 
be  granted;  and  I  therefore  deemed  it  best  to  leave  the  subject 
with  them,  and  confine  myself  to  that  branch  of  my  instructions 
which  made  it  my  duty  to  explore  the  country,  and  obtain  such 
information  as  would  be  useful,  and  from  which  the  data  could 
be  obtained  to  form,  as  near  as  practicable,  a  uniform  system  of 
treaties.  Of  the  propriety  of  this  course  I  have  now  no  doubt. 

"A  civil  government  should  be  organized  over  the  Territory. 
The  Intercourse  act  is  almost  a  dead  letter.  The  United  States 
court  for  the  district  of  Missouri  and  Arkansas  is  too  far  re 
moved  from  the  Indian  country;  and  for  Indian  purposes  alone, 
saying  nothing  of  the  protection  of  our  emigration  to  the  Pacific, 
a  civil  government  ought  to  be  organized  there.  In  addition  to 
this,  the  position  of  Nebraska,  with  reference  to  our  Pacific  pos 
sessions,  renders  it  a  matter  of  vast  importance  that  it  be  speedily 
opened,  and  actual  settlers  invited  into  it  on  the  most  liberal 
terms. 

"It  is  confidently  expected  that  the  necessary  treaties  can  be 
made  with  these  border  Indians  during  the  months  of  April  and 
May,  so  that  ample  time  may  be  had  for  their  consideration  and 
ratification  by  the  Senate,  and  for  the  establishment  of  a  terri 
torial  government  before  the  adjournment  of  the  approaching 
session  of  Congress."  227 


227  "The  return  of  the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs  to  the  seat  of 
government  from  his  tour  to  the  Indian  Territory  has  already  been  an 
nounced.  From  what  we  have  learnt  of  that  tour  we  are  inclined  to  augur 
much  good  from  it,  and  believe  that  it  will  furnish  the  Government  with 
an  amount  of  accurate  information,  obtainable  only  by  actual  observations 
on  the  spot,  which  will  tend  greatly  to  expedite  the  desirable  and  indeed 


1 62  THE  REPEAL  OF 


almost  necessary  measure  of  a  territorial  organization  of  Nebraska " 

National  Intelligencer,   November   5,   1853 ;   see  also  editorial   in  the  New 
York   Tribune,  December  7,   1853. 


CHAPTER  VI 

Popular  Interest  in  Nebraska  among  Missourians  and  lowans— 
Hadley  D.  Johnson— Congressional  Action  Anticipated— Senator 
Douglas  in  Europe— His  Letter  to  Walker  and  Lanphier—The 
Doctrine  of  Supersedure. 

Having  thus  witnessed  some  of  the  Indian  man 
ifestations  of  interest  in  the  early  organization  of  Ne 
braska  Territory,  we  may  consider  similar  manifesta 
tions  by  the  people  of  Missouri  and  Iowa.  Inci 
dentally  these  will  disprove  the  statement  repeatedly 
made  during  the  Kansas-Nebraska  debate  that  there 
was  no  popular  demand  for  the  organization  of  the 
new  Territories. 228 


228  Upon  this  point,  James  M.  Cutts,  the  son-in-law  and  the  "Boswell" 
of  Stephen  A.  Douglas,  has  the  following  to  say  which  may  be  regarded 
as  coming  from  Douglas  himself: 

".  .  .  .  In  the  meantime  [1844-53]  the  passion  of  the  Western  people 
for  emigration  had  become  so  aroused,  that  they  could  be  no  longer  re 
strained  ;  and  Colonel  Benton,  who  was  a  candidate  in  Missouri  for  re 
election  to  the  Senate  in  1852  and  1853,  so  far  yielded  to  the  popular 
clamor,  as  to  advise  the  emigrants  who  had  assembled,  in  a  force  of  fifteen 
or  twenty  thousand,  on  the  western  border  of  Missouri,  carrying  their 
tents  and  wagons,  to  invade  the  territory  and  take  possession,  in  defiance 
of  the  Indian  intercourse  laws,  and  of  the  authority  of  the  Federal  Gov 
ernment,  which,  if  executed,  must  inevitably  have  precipitated  an  Indian 
war  with  all  those  tribes. 

"When  this  movement  on  the  part  of  Colonel  Benton  became  known  at 
Washington,  the  President  of  the  United  States  despatched  the  Commissioner 
of  Indian  Affairs  [Colonel  Manypenny]  to  the  scene  of  excitement,  with  or 
ders  to  the  commanding  officer  at  Fort  Leavenworth  to  use  the  United  States 
army  in  resisting  the  invasion,  if  he  could  not  succeed  in  restraining  the  emi 
grants  by  persuasion  and  remonstrances.  The  Commissioner  of  Indian  Af- 


164  THE  REPEAL  OF 

The  interest  felt  by  the  people  of  Missouri 
found  frequent  and  emphatic  expression  in  public 
meetings  in  localities  where  interest  was  especially 
keen.  To  what  extent  these  meetings  were  the  spon 
taneous  act  of  the  people  and  to  what  extent  they 
were  the  result  of  efforts  on  the  part  of  politicians, 
it  is  impossible  to  determine. 

After  the  Parkville  meeting  of  June,  1852,  the 
first  meeting  of  which  a  record  has  been  found  was 
held  in  Andrew  County  on  the  twenty-sixth  of  No 
vember,  1853.  The  citizens  of  that  county  "without 
distinction  of  party,"  according  to  the  Jefferson  In 
quirer,  229  assembled  in  the  court  house  in  Savannah 
pursuant  to  previous  notice,  and  "organized  a  mass 
meeting,  by  electing  Judge  Daniel  Van  Buskirk 
president,  and  G.  W.  Samuels  and  W.  A.  Price  sec 
retaries.  A  committee  with  C.  F.  Holly,  a  strong 
Bentonite,  as  chairman,  reported  a  long  series  of  res 
olutions  of  which  the  following  are  the  most  im 
portant: 

"Third  resolution.  That  in  failing  to  extend  to  Nebraska 
the  political  organization  sought  at  the  last  session  of  Congress, 
that  body  or  the  men  therein  who  were  the  authors  of  such 


fairs  succeeded  in  procuring  the  agreement  of  the  emigrants  that  they  would 
encamp  on  the  western  borders  of  Missouri  until  the  end  of  the  next  session 
of  Congress,  in  order  to  see  if  Congress  would  not  in  the  meantime,  by  law, 
open  the  country  to  emigration.  When  Congress  assembled  at  the  session 
of  1853-54,  in  view  of  this  state  of  facts,  Mr.  Douglas  renewed  his  Ne 
braska  Act^  which  was  modified,  pending  discussion,  by  dividing  into  two 
Territories,  and  became  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act.  From  these  facts  you 
can  draw  your  own  conclusion,  'whether  there  was  any  necessity  for  the  or 
ganization  of  the  Territory  and  of  Congressional  action  at  that  time."  —  A 
Brief  Treatise  upon  Constitutional  and  Party  Questions,  90-91. 
229  December  24,  1853. 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  165 

failure  have  a  vast  responsibility  to  encounter  at  the  bar  of  public 
opinion  and  we  trust  it  will  be  fully  met.  23° 

"Fourth  resolution.  That  it  is  the  duty  of  Congress  as 
early  as  possible  at  its  ensuing  session  to  organize  Nebraska  into  a 
Territory  and  thus  give  to  her  residents,  travellers,  and  traders 
and  citizens  the  protection  of  law  and  the  rights  and  privileges 
of  a  free  people. 

"Fifth  resolution.  That  in  effecting  that  organization  a 
bill  substantially  similar  in  its  provisions  to  those  in  Hall's  bill 
introduced  at  the  last  session  and  so  ably  advocated  by  our  late 
faithful  Representative,  Hon.  Willard  P.  Hall,  would  meet  our 
approbation  and  as  we  believe  that  of  the  whole  country. 

"Sixth  resolution.  That  in  organizing  Nebraska  Territory 
the  pestiferous  question  of  slavery  should  be  entirely  excluded; 
and  the  people  who  shall  settle  it  should  determine  for  themselves 
whether  the  future  State  or  States  which  shall  hereafter  be  formed 
from  its  area  shall  be  free  States  or  slave  States,  and  from  such 
decision  when  made  there  should  be  no  appeal.  231 

"Seventh  resolution.  That  we  are  utterly  opposed  to  any 
agitation  of  that  Vexed  question'  now  happily  set  at  rest,  and  'we 
will  resist  all  attempts  at  renewing  in  Congress  or  out  of  it,  the 
agitation  of  the  slavery  question  under  whatever  shape  or  color 
the  attempt  may  be  made.' 

"Eighth  resolution.  That  we  consider  the  agitation  of  the 
slavery  question  in  connection  with  the  organization  of  Nebraska 
Territory  dangerous  to  the  peace  of  the  country,  fatal  to  the  best 
interests  of  Nebraska  itself  and  even  threatening  the  harmony  if 
not  the  perpetuity  of  the  whole  Union."  232 


230  A  reproof  aimed  at  Atchison. 

231  The  italics  are  mine. 

232  Three  resolutions  also  expressly  endorsed  and  approved  Col.  Ben- 
ton's  doctrine  that  Nebraska  was  then  open  to  settlement,  and  in  this  con 
nection  Col.  Manypenny  comes  in  for  the  severest  kind  of  a  censure: 

"Ninth  resolution.  That  all  that  portion  of  Nebraska  not  included 
within  the  limits  of  Indian  reservations  and  which  comprises  the  greater 
bulk  of  that  Territory  is  as  clearly  United  States  lands  and  as  equally 


1 66  THE  REPEAL  OF 

A  resolution  was  also  passed  providing  for  the 
selection  by  the  meeting  of  one  hundred  citizens  to 
represent  Andrew  County  in  "a  general  convention 

subject  to  the  lawful  occupation  and  settlement  of  American  citizens  as  is 
any  other  vacant  Government  land  not  surveyed,  reserved  or  preempted. 

"Tenth  resolution.  That  while  we  are  in  favor  of  maintaining  in 
violate  the  faith  of  treaties  yet  we  believe  the  best  interest  of  the  red  races 
as  well  as  our  own,  alike  require  the  speedy  extinction  of  all  the  Indian 
titles  in  Nebraska  and  the  like  speedy  occupation  and  settlement  of  that 
whole  territory  by  the  patriotic  vanguard  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  race. 

"Eleventh  resolution.  That  seeking  immediate  settlement  of  that  Ter 
ritory  in  advance  of  such  extinguishment  of  Indian  titles  'that  meritorious 
class  of  citizens,  the  hardy  pioneer'  may  rely  upon  Col.  Benton's  map  upon 
which  have  been  drawn  all  the  Indian  reservations,  as  an  accurate  and  in 
valuable  guide 

"Fourteenth  resolution.  That  while  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Executive  to 
see  that  the  laws  are  faithfully  executed,  President  Pierce  in  having  com 
missioned  an  officer  to  execute  the  law  aforesaid  (appropriating  $100,000 
for  the  extinguishment  of  Indian  titles)  is  not  liable  to  censure  in  the 
premises ;  but  Col.  Manypenny,  the  Commissioner,  in  grossly  neglecting 
the  duties  of  his  appointment,  in  meddling  in  the  local  politics  of  that 
Territory,  and  failing  to  treat  with  the  tribes  of  Indians  who  were  willing 
and  proposed  so  to  treat  and  finally  returning  to  Washington  without  car 
rying  out  in  good  faith  the  appropriation  made  by  Congress  or  assigning 
any  satisfactory  reason  for  the  failure,  has  evinced  a  marked  contempt 
for  public  opinion,  a  disregard  of  law  and  his  utter  inefficiency  as  a 
public  officer."  The  source  which  may  have  inspired  these  resolutions  is 
pretty  clearly  indicated  in  the  fifteenth  resolution. 

"Fifteenth  resolution.  That  the  unwearied  efforts  of  our  late  Senator, 
Pater  Senatus,  Col.  Thomas  H.  Benton,  to  arouse  public  attention  to  the 
claims  of  Nebraska  Territory,  to  secure  the  location  of  the  grand  'highway 
of  nations'  through  its  center  and  to  promote  the  general  weal  of  this 
State  and  the  Union,  deserve  and  will  receive  the  heartfelt  approbation  of 
a  grateful  country " 

"The  preamble  and  each  resolution,"  so  the  report  continues,  "having 
first  been  read  together,  were  read  and  voted  upon  separately  and  all 
unanimously  adopted,  excepting  the  fifteenth,  which  having  been  dis 
cussed"  by  four  speakers  in  its  favor  and  two  against  it,  "was  amended 
....  by  'adding  the  thanks  of  the  people  to  Hon.  W.  A.  Hall  and  all 
other  friends  of  Nebraska'  and  finally  adopted  by  a  large  vote."  —  Jefferson 
Inquirer,  December  24,  1853. 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  167 

of  all  the  friends  of  Nebraska"  to  be  held  at  St. 
Joseph  on  the  ninth  of  the  ensuing  January.233 

Just  a  week  later,234  the  people  of  St.  Joseph, 
"in  pursuance  of  previous  notice  ....  assembled 
at  the  City  Hall  to  express  their  views  in  relation  to 
the  immediate  organization  of  Nebraska  Territory." 
The  City  Hall  was  crowded,  we  read,  and  "the  ut 
most  harmony  prevailed,  and  all  were  animated  by 
one  feeling  and  that  was  the  organization  of  the 
Territory  by  the  present  Congress  and  the  speedy 
extinguishment  of  the  titles." 

B.  O'Driscoll  acted  as  president  of  this  meeting 
and  L.  J.  Easton  as  secretary.  Judge  C.  F.  Holly, 
who  had  reported  the  resolutions  quoted  above  at  the 


233  "The  following  paragraphs  from  the  St.  Louis  Democrat  of  the 
twenty-sixth  of  November,  give  an  account  of  the  call  of  a  great  general 
meeting  of  the  people  of  the  frontiers  in  relation  to  this  question: 

"  'There  is  no  longer  any  doubt  about  the  certainty  of  the  immediate 
organization  of  Nebraska  as  a  Territory.  The  St.  Joseph  Gazette  comes 
to  us  with  its  columns  freighted  with  the  names  of  all  the  frontier  citizens 
calling  for  a  mass  convention  on  the  eighth  [ninth]  of  January  to  take 
measures  for  carrying  out  this  purpose.  Public  opinion,  the  supreme 
power  in  this  country  calls  for  the  settlement  of  that  fine  Territory  in  tones 
that  cannot  be  misunderstood.  We  quite  concur  in  the  spirit  and  manner 
of  the  movement.  Let  the  people  speak  on  the  eighth  of  January  in  ac 
cents  that  will  startle  the  indolent  and  vulgar  Senator  who  opposes  them, 

in  accents  that  will  remind  Congress  of  its  duty Can  there  be  a 

more  withering  rebuke  of  the  malignant  stupidities  of  Atchison  than  the 
call  for  the  convention,  signed  by  men  of  every  shade  of  politics  with 
whom  patriotism  is  happily  higher  than  party?' 

"The  last  sentence  in  this  quotation  refers  to  a  declaration  made  by 
Senator  Atchison  to  the  effect  that  he  is  now  determined  to  oppose  the 
organization  of  Nebraska  as  a  Territory,  notwithstanding  that  at  the  last 
session  of  Congress  he  declared  himself  ready  though  reluctant  to  vote 
for  that  measure."  Quoted  in  the  Boston  Atlas,  December  6,  1853.  The 
editor  of  the  Atlas  apparently  was  ignorant  of  Atchison's  declarations  in 
favor  of  Nebraska  made  during  the  summer  of  1853. 

234  December  3,  1853,  two  days  before  the  33d  Congress  met. 


1 68  THE  REPEAL  OF 

Andrew  County  meeting,  was  present  and  addressed 
the  meeting.  Mr.  Easton,  acting  also  as  chairman 
of  the  committee  on  resolutions,  reported  a  long  se 
ries,  favoring  "the  early  organization  and  settlement 
of  Nebraska"  in  accordance  with  "Hall's  bill,  or  one 
similar  in  provision;"  condemning  those  members 
of  the  last  Congress  who  prevented  the  passage  of 
the  Nebraska  bill;  and  endorsing  Colonel  Benton's 
doctrine  of  the  right  of  "immediate"  settlement.  The 
two  most  important  resolutions  relate  to  the  subject 
of  slavery  in  the  new  Territory,  and  these,  with  the 
Andrew  County  resolutions  just  quoted,  are  signifi 
cant  as  indicating  a  popular  demand  in  Missouri  for 
the  settlement  of  the  slavery  question  in  precisely  the 
manner  later  prescribed  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill. 

"3.  Resolved,  That  we  are  opposed  to  the  agitation  of  the 
slavery  question  in  the  organization  of  this  Territory  by  any 
attempt  to  repeal  the  Missouri  Compromise,  and  that  without 
entering  into  the  discussion  of  the  merits  or  demerits  of  that  Com 
promise,  or  the  Compromise  Measures,  we  are  willing  to  abide 
by  and  sustain  them. 

"4.  Resolved,  That  we  are  in  favor  of  the  people  who  go 
there  and  settle  to  determine  the  question  as  to  whether  it  shall  be 
a  slave  or  free  State.  23S  We  are  unwilling  to  interfere  in  that 
question,  but  are  content  and  satisfied  with  a  simple  organization 
of  the  Territory  and  extending  the  laws  of  the  country  over  its 
settlers."  236 

235  The  italics  are  mine. 

236  The  other  important  resolutions  were  as  follows: 

"i.  Resolved,  That  we  are  in  favor  of  the  early  organization  and 
settlement  of  Nebraska  Territory,  and  believe  that  the  present  Congress 
would  consult  the  will  and  interest  of  the  great  body  of  the  people  by 
passing  a  bill  extending  the  laws  over  that  Territory. 

"2.  Resolved,  That  in  passing  a  bill  to  organize  that  Territory  we 
are  in  favor  of  one  known  as  Hall's  bill,  or  one  similar  in  provisions. 

"5.     Resolved,     That  those  persons  in  the  last  Congress,  whoever  they 


THE   MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  169 

The  Nebraska  Convention  met  at  the  court 
house  in  St.  Joseph,  Missouri,  on  the  ninth  of 
January,  1854.  The  Convention  adopted  a  long  se 
ries  of  resolutions, 237  the  majority  of  them  being 

may  be,  that  threw  obstacles  in  the  way  of  the  passage  of  a  bill  to  organize 
that  Territory  after  it  had  passed  the  House  deserve  the  condemnation  of 
the  people. 

"6.  Resolved,  That  we  believe  all  that  part  of  Nebraska  Territory 
(which  is  much  the  larger  portion)  not  belonging  to  the  Indians 
by  treaty  and  [not]  marked  out  to  them  by  metes  and  bounds  is  Govern 
ment  land  and  as  clearly  subject  to  settlement  as  any  other  public  unsur- 
veyed  lands 

"8.  Resolved,  That  our  people  are  a  law-abiding  people  and  are 
not  disposed  to  violate  any  treaty  stipulation  of  the  Government  or  tres 
pass  upon  Indian  lands.  .  .  . 

"9.  Resolved,  That  the  interests  of  the  red  man  and  of  the  Govern 
ment  require  the  speedy  extinguishment  of  the  Indian  titles 

"n.  Resolved,  That  we  heartily  approve  of  the  high  and  noble  and 
patriotic  course  of  our  neighbors  and  friends  in  Iowa  for  the  firm  and 
decided  stand  they  have  taken  for  the  immediate  organization  of  Nebraska 
Territory. 

"12.  Resolved,  That  a  copy  of  these  resolutions  be  furnished  to  each 
of  our  Senators  and  Representatives  in  Congress." 

A  subsequent  resolution  authorized  the  chairman  of  the  meeting  to 
appoint  two  hundred  delegates  to  attend  the  St.  Joseph  Convention  to  be 
held  on  the  ninth  of  January.  These  resolutions  may  be  found  in  the 
Jefferson  Inquirer,  Dec.  24,  1853,  quoted  from  the  St.  Joseph  Gazette. 

237  The  preamble  and  most  important  resolutions  were   as  follows: 

"Whereas,  it  is  the  inalienable  right  of  the  people  to  peaceably  as 
semble  together  to  express  their  views  in  regard  to  any  given  topic  in  a 
respectful  manner;  and 

"Whereas,  it  is  the  bounden  duty  of  the  people's  representatives  to 
respect  the  views  thus  given;  and 

"Whereas,  the  early  organization  and  settlement  of  Nebraska  Terri 
tory  is  deemed  a  matter  of  vast  importance  and  fraught  with  consequences 
alike  affecting  the  interests  of  the  white  as  well  as  the  red  man;  and 

"Whereas,  the  geographical  position  of  Missouri  and  Iowa  being  more 
central  for  the  location  of  the  Pacific  railroad  through  our  territory  and 
being  on  a  direct  line  with  the  great  cities  of  commerce  on  the  Atlantic 
and  California  and  Oregon  on  the  Pacific,  the  best  interests  of  the  Republic 
would  be  subserved  by  the  construction  of  such  a  road,  it  is  therefore 
deemed  necessary  to  securing  so  desirable  a  result  that  Nebraska  Territory 


170  THE  REPEAL  OF 

either  verbatim  or  substantial  reproductions  of  the 
resolutions  of  the  Andrew  County  meeting.  This  se 
ries  too  had  a  resolution  relating  to  the  slavery  ques 
tion: 

"Resolved,  That  we  consider  the  agitation  of  the  slavery 
question  in  connection  with  the  organization  of  Nebraska  territory 
dangerous  to  the  peace  of  the  country,  fatal  to  the  best  interests 
of  Nebraska  itself  and  even  threatening  the  harmony,  if  not  the 
perpetuity  of  the  w^hole  Union. 

"Resolved,  That  in  organizing  Nebraska  territory  all  who 
are  now  or  may  hereafter  settle  there  should  be  protected  in  all 
their  rights,  leaving  questions  of  local  policy  to  be  settled  by  the 
citizens  of  the  territory  when  they  form  a  state  government. 


"  238 


be  settled,  thereby  enabling  protection  to  be  extended  to  the  road  and  afford 
shelter  for  the  thousands  annually  crossing  the  plains;  we  the  people  of 
northwestern  Missouri,  western  Iowa  and  Nebraska  Territory  in  Convention 
assembled  do  .... 

"Resolve, 

"6, That  it  is  the  duty  of  Congress  as  early  as  possible  at  the 

present  session  to  organize  Nebraska  into  a  Territory  and  thus  give  to  her 
residents,  travellers,  traders  and  citizens  the  protection  of  law  and  the 
rights  and  privileges  of  a  free  people. 

"8 That  while  we  are  in  favor  of  the  early  extinguishment 

of  the  Indian  titles,  we  believe  that  delays  are  dangerous  and  that  the 
organization  of  the  Territory  should  not  be  delayed  for  that  purpose,  but 
a  government  of  laws  should  at  once  be  extended  over  the  people  who  may 
settle  there. 

"to That  the  law  of  1807  in  relation  to  trespassers  upon 

Public  Lands  is  a  dead  letter  and  ought  to  be  repealed  by  the  present 
Congress " 

The  Convention  also  appointed  a  committee  of  three  to  draft  a  me 
morial  to  Congress  "urging  speedy  action  on  the  Nebraska  question;"  and 
voted  that  a  committee  of  correspondence  previously  chosen  "be  requested 
to  solicit  the  views  of  all  the  members  of  Congress  and  other  prominent 
citizens  throughout  the  Union,  and  that  when  obtained  they  be  published 
at  the  discretion  of  the  Committee."  The  resolutions  appear  in  the  Missouri 
Republican,  January  9,  1854. 

238  The  italics  are  mine.  The  New  York  Independent  for  Sept.  25, 
1856,  contains  a  contribution  by  a  gentleman  who  had  spent  several  years 


THE   MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  171 

It  may  seem  strange  that  the  foregoing  resolu 
tions  which  are  clearly  pro-Benton,  advocate  a  solu 
tion  of  the  slavery  question  in  the  new  Territory  not 
in  harmony  with  the  Missouri  Compromise  which 
Benton  favored  but  according  to  the  principle  of 
popular  sovereignty.  The  explanation  lies  in  the 
fact  that  Benton's  position  on  the  slavery  question 
did  not  truly  represent  that  of  the  majority  of  the 
people  of  Missouri.  Although  they  heartily  ap 
plauded  his  efforts  in  behalf  of  the  Pacific  railroad  239 

in  the  western  part  of  Missouri,  giving  an  account  of  Kansas  affairs 
during  the  three  years  preceding.  Mention  is  made  in  this  account 
of  a  pro-slavery  meeting  in  Missouri,  of  which  I  have  been  able  to  find 
no  other  record.  "In  the  latter  part  of  1853,  almost  a  year  before  the 
passing  of  the  Nebraska  bill,  a  public  meeting  was  held  in  Platte  county, 
Missouri,  to  consider  the  affairs  of  Kansas.  Atchison  made  a  speech, 
and  was  the  master  spirit  of  the  meeting,  and  it  was  'Resolved,  that  if 
the  Territory  shall  be  opened  to  settlement,  we  pledge  ourselves  to  each 
other  to  extend  the  institutions  of  Missouri  over  the  Territory,  at  whatever 
sacrifice  of  blood  or  treasure.'  These  resolutions  were  published  in  the 
Platte  Argus.  This  was  long  before  Douglas  had  thought  of  venturing 

upon  the  Repeal This  meeting  attracted  little  public  attention  at 

the  time,  but  it  furnishes  the  key  to  all  the  subsequent  history.  Atchison 
has  since  explained  the  process  by  which  he  bullied  and  terrified  Pierce  and 
Douglas  into  the  fatal  measure  of  repealing  the  restriction " 

239  it  will  be  remembered  that  the  main  issue  which  caused  Benton's 
defeat  in  1849-50  was  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  which  Benton  was  represented 
as  supporting;  see  Green's  letter  in  Chapter  II. 

The  Legislature  which  had  passed  the  Jackson  Resolutions,  adopted 
the  following  "Joint  Resolution  in  relation  to  the  Pacific  Railroad,"  about 
the  time  Benton  introduced  his  first  Central  Highway  bill  in  the  Senate. 

"Resolved,  By  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Missouri  as  follows: 

"§i.  That  we,  the  representatives  of  the  people  of  Missouri  view  with 
lively  interest  and  the  utmost  pleasure  the  efforts  of  our  distinguished 
Senator  in  Congress,  the  Honorable  Thomas  H.  Benton,  in  furtherance  of 
the  grand  project  of  locating  and  constructing  a  national  central  railroad 
from  San  Francisco,  on  the  Pacific,  to  St.  Louis  on  the  Mississippi,  with  a 
branch  to  the  Columbia  river,  as  evidenced  by  the  notice  given  by  him  in 


172  THE  REPEAL  OF 

and  in  behalf  of  the  new  Territory,  they  strongly 
favored  the  settlement  of  the  slavery  question  in  ac 
cordance  with  the  principle  of  popular  sovereignty. 
It  must  be  remembered  that  the  principle  of  popular 
sovereignty  appealed  with  peculiar  force  to  a  western 
community  like  Missouri.  Almost  three  years  before 
the  celebrated  Cass-Nicholson  letter,  the  Legislature 
of  Missouri  had  formally  gone  on  record  in  favor  of 
popular  sovereignty  as  a  solution  of  the  question  of 
slavery  in  the  Territories.  In  a  memorial  to  Con 
gress  24°  favoring  the  early  annexation  of  Texas,  it 
was  declared 


the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  of  his  intention  to  introduce  into  that  body 
a  bill  providing  for  the  construction  and  location  of  said  road. 

"§2.  That  we  cordially  approve  the  course  of  our  distinguished  Senator 
in  relation  to  this  great  and  national  object,  and  we  heartily  tender  him  our 
best  wishes  for  his  success  in  the  promotion  of  this  great  and  laudable 
national  enterprise.  Approved,  March  10,  1849."  —  Laws  of  Missouri, 
1848-49,  668. 

240  This  memorial  was  passed  by  the  Legislature  which  elected  Benton 
to  the  Senate  for  the  last  time,  and  was  approved,  Jan.  3,  1845.  It  is 
printed  in  full,  together  with  the  remarks  of  Benton  and  Atchison  in 
approval,  in  Cong.  Globe,  xiv,  154-155.  See  also  Senate  Journal,  zd  Sess., 
28th  Cong.,  94-95 ;  Carr's  Missouri,  195.  The  following  editorial  ap 
peared  in  the  Missouri  Republican,  Jan.  22,  1854: 

f      <lTfae  bill   .    .    .    .   as  presented  by  Judge  Douglas,  attempts  to  avoid 

(the  agitation  of  slavery  in   Congress  and  to  throw   its  decision  upon  the 

courts   and  the  people  who  may  occupy  the  Territory,  when  it  shall  be 

S  sufficiently  populated  to  be  admitted  as  a  State  into  the  Union The 

\bill  ....   affirms  a  principle  which  we  of  Missouri  contended  for  when 
into  the  Union  and  which  the  nation  then  conceded  to  be  right, 
affirms  the  right  of  the  people,  when  they  ask  to  be  admitted  as 
\  State  to  come  in  with  or  without  the  institution  of  slavery,  as  to  them, 

and  not  to  Congress  shall  seem  most  expedient The  Legislature 

of  this  State  has  since  confirmed  this  principle We  copy  the  words 

of    a    resolution    passed   by    the   Legislature    of    this    State    and    approved 

January  3,  1845 [as  quoted  above]    ....  This  instruction  has 

not  been  repealed  or  expunged.     It  stands  upon  the  statute  books  with  all 
the  force  of  any  unrepealed  resolution Colonel  Benton  then  in  the 


Ibill  .   .   . 
/we  came  ii 
I  .   ...  It 

1         j~*  . 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  173 

"That  in  the  opinion  of  this  General  Assembly,  a  great  ma 
jority  of  the  people  of  this  State  prefer  that  Texas  should  be 
annexed  to  the  United  States  without  dividing  her  territory  into 
slaveholding  and  non-slaveholding  States ;  but  leaving  that  question 
to  be  settled  by  the  people  who  now  or  hereafter,  may  occupy  the 
territory  that  may  be  annexed"  241 

A  county  meeting  of  "the  friends  of  Nebraska" 
was  held  in  St.  Louis  on  the  day  of  the  St.  Joseph 
Convention,  "composed  of  the  confidential  friends 
and  mouthpieces  of"  Benton;  at  least  so  said  Atchi- 
son.  At  this  meeting  speeches  were  made  by  W.  V. 
N.  Boy,  Thomas  L.  Price,  B.  Gratz  Brown,  A. 
Kreckel,  H.  Dusenbury  and  John  A.  Kasson.242  A 
committee  of  twenty-four  reported  the  resolutions 
through  F.  P.  Blair,  Jr.,  which  were  unanimously 
adopted.  The  third  of  these  resolutions  was  as  fol 
lows  : 

"Resolved,  That  we  are  in  favor  of  a  territorial  govern 
ment  for  Nebraska,  and  that  we  regard  all  who  oppose  it  upon 
whatever  pretext,  as  hostile  to  the  best  interests  of  the  State."  243 

One  fact  of  importance  to  note  before  leaving 
this  phase  of  the  subject  is  that  the  demands  of  the 


Senate,  took  no  appeal  from  it  to  the  people,  has  never  objected  to  it  since 
and  now  by  what  right  does  he  refuse  to  obey  this  instruction,  and  insist, 
as  it  is  well  understood  he  will  insist,  that  Nebraska  should  be  made  a 
freesoil  Territory  and  eventually  a  State  into  which  no  slaveholder  of 
Missouri  shall  be  permitted  to  enter  with  his  slave  property?" 

241  Xhe  italics  are  mine. 

242  After  discovering  his  name  in  this  connection,  I  wrote  to  the  Hon. 
John  A.  Kasson  asking  if  he  could  furnish  me  with  any  detailed  information 
about  the  political  situation   in   Missouri   at  this  time.     His   reply  in  the 
negative  states:     "Your  inquiries  refer  to  a  period  fifty  years  ago,  and  to 
incidents  the  memory  of  which  has  been  overlaid  by  many  later  and  vital 
historical  experiences  of  the  country.     I  resided  in  St.  Louis  from  1850  to 
1857,  a  period  of  gestation  of  bitter  party  and  personal  feuds." 

243  Quoted  in  Atchison's  letter  of  June  5,  1854.     See  Appendix  C. 


174  THE  REPEAL  OF 

Andrew  County  and  the  St.  Joseph  meetings  were 
made  before  the  assembling  of  the  33d  Congress, 
and  that  the  call  for  the  St.  Joseph  Convention  had 
been  issued  long  before  the  meeting  of  Congress. 
Furthermore,  the  resolutions  of  that  Convention,  al 
though  adopted  five  days  after  Douglas's  report  of 
January  4,244  indicate  no  knowledge  of  that  report: 
indeed,  it  is  probable  that  no  intelligence  of  the  re 
port  had  then  reached  western  Missouri. 

Thus  far  attention  has  been  concentrated  upon 
the  interest  displayed  by  Missourians  in  the  organi 
zation  of  Nebraska  Territory.  The  bill,  however, 
which  ultimately  became  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act 
was  introduced  into  Congress  by  a  Senator  from  the 
State  of  Iowa.  This  investigation  would  therefore 
be  incomplete  without  some  mention  of  the  interest 
appearing  in  that  State.  Obviously  the  causes 
which  enlisted  the  interest  of  the  people  of  Iowa  in 
the  new  Territory  differed  from  those  operating  with 
the  people  of  Missouri.  The  interest  of  the  former 
was  of  course  not  instigated  by  the  question  of  slav 
ery.  The  meager  evidence  which  has  been  discov 
ered  nevertheless  indicates  that  the  Iowa  interest  was 
scarcely  less  profound  than  that  in  Missouri.  The 
chief  cause  lay,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Wyandotts,  in 
the  intimate  relation  of  the  new  Territory  to  the  pro 
posed  railroad  to  the  Pacific. 

In  the  "Notes"  of  Governor  Walker  of  Nebras 
ka  is  found  a  reference  to  perhaps  the  first  manifesta 
tion  of  popular  interest  in  Iowa.  Referring  to  the 

i 

244  Taken  up  in  Chapter  VII. 


THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  175 

election  of  Territorial  Delegate  in  October,  1853, 24S 
Governor  Walker  says: 

"Upon  canvassing  the  returns  it  was  found  that  a  third  can 
didate  was  voted  for  in  the  Bellevue  precinct,  in  the  person  of 
Hadley  D.  Johnson,  Esq.,  who  received  358  votes.  From  infor 
mation  received  from  that  precinct  it  appeared  that  Mr.  Johnson 
was  an  actual  resident  of  Iowa,  and  at  that  time  a  member  of  the 
Legislature  of  that  State;  and  an  additional  circumstance  tending 
to  vitiate  the  election  in  this  precinct  was  that  a  majority  of  the 
voters  were  actual  residents  of  that  State.  The  officers  were  com 
pelled  to  reject  these  returns "  246 

A  newspaper  printed  in  Missouri  and  containing 
a  notice  of  the  election  to  be  held  in  the  Nebraska 
country  on  the  eleventh  of  October  had  accidentally 
come  into  the  possession  of  this  Mr.  Johnson  only  a 
few  days  before  the  time  fixed  for  the  election.  Years 
afterwards  Mr.  Johnson  published  an  account  of 
what  then  took  place,  of  the  interest  of  the  lowans 
in  the  organization  of  Nebraska,  and  of  his  own  part 
in  the  enactment  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill.  As 
this  is  the  best  evidence  which  has  been  discovered 
relative  to  Iowa's  interest  in  the  Nebraska  move 
ment  a  large  part  of  it  is  here  reproduced. 247 

"On  reading  this  announcement  [of  the  election  for  a  Dele 
gate  to  Congress],  I  immediately  communicated  the  news  to  prom 
inent  citizens  of  Council  Bluffs,  and  it  \vas  at  once  decided  that 
Iowa  should  compete  for  the  empty  honors  connected  with  the 
delegateship.  An  election  at  Sarpy's  was  determined  on;  arrange 
ments  made  with  the  owners  of  the  ferry-boat  at  that  point  to 
transport  the  impromptu  emigrants  to  their  new  homes,  and  they 


245  See  pages  150,   151. 

246  Connelley's  Prov.  Gov.,  58   ff. 

247  Mr.  Johnson's  account  appeared  originally  as  a  paper  read  before 
the    Nebraska    State    Historical    Society,    Jan.    n,    1887;    it   is    printed    in 
Nebr.  State  Hist.  Soc.  Transactions  and  Reports,  ii,  85  ff. 


176  THE  REPEAL  OF 

were  accordingly  landed  on  the  west  shore  of  the  Missouri  river 
a  few  hundred  yards  above  Sarpy's  trading  house,  where,  on  the 
day  appointed,  an  election  was  held,  the  result  of  which  may  be 
learned  from  the  original  certificate  hereto  annexed,  248  a  copy  of 
which  w^as  sent  to  the  Honorable  Bernhart  Henn,  the  member  of 
the  house  of  representatives  from  Iowa,  by  him  submitted  to  the 
House,  and  referred  to  the  committee  on  elections,  but  for  reasons 
obvious  to  the  reader  of  the  proceedings  of  Congress  immediately 
following,  no  report  was  ever  made  by  that  committee  in  the  case. 

"I  may  remark  here  that  I  consented  with  much  reluctance 
to  the  use  of  my  name  in  this  connection,  and  for  several  reasons: 
I  was  poor  and  could  not  well  afford  to  neglect  my  business  and 
spend  a  winter  at  Washington;  the  expenses  of  the  trip  I  knew 
would  be  a  heavy  drain  upon  my  limited  exchequer;  besides  I  had 
so  lately  neglected  my  private  affairs  by  my  services  at  Iowa 
City.  However,  I  finally  yielded  to  the  earnest  request  of  a 
number  of  my  personal  friends,  who  were  also  ardent  friends  of 
the  new  scheme,  and  consented  to  the  use  of  my  name,  at  the  same 
time  pledging  my  word  that  I  would  proceed  to  Washington,  if 
chosen,  and  do  the  best  I  could  to  advance  the  cause  we  had  in 
hand.  In  addition  to  the  ballots  cast  for  me  for  delegate  at  this 
election,  the  Rev.  William  Hamilton  received  304  votes  for  Pro 
visional  Governor;  Dr.  Monson  H.  Clark  received  295  for  Sec 
retary,  and  H.  P.  Downs  283  for  Treasurer.  249 

"These  proceedings  at  Sarpy's  landing  were  followed  by  va 
rious  public  meetings  in  Iowa  (and  also  in  Missouri)  at  which 
resolutions  were  adopted,  urging  the  organization  of  Nebraska 
Territory.  Amongst  others,  meetings  were  held  at  Council  Bluffs, 
St.  Mary's,  Glenwood,  and  Sidney,  25°  at  which  the  actions  at 


248  A  copy  of  this  certificate  is  in  Connelley's  Prov.   Gov.,  84  n.     It 
shows  that  Mr.  Johnson  received  all  the  votes  cast  for  Delegate,  namely,  358. 

249  This  is  the  only  reference  I  have  found  to  the  Provisional  Govern 
ment  here  mentioned. 

250  The  National  Intelligencer  of  Dec.  i,  1853,  contains  this  notice  of 
the   Sidney   meeting:      "The   people    of   western   Iowa   are   stirring   them 
selves  on  the  subject  of  a  speedy  organization  of  Nebraska  Territory.     On 
the  yth  instant    (Nov.)    a  large  meeting  of  the  citizens  of  three  counties 
was  held  at  Sidney  over  which  William  C.  Means  of  Page  County  presided. 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  177 

Sarpy's  were  endorsed.  Earnest  and  eloquent  speeches  were  made 
by  such  leading  citizens  as  Hon.  W.  C.  Means  and  Judge  Snyder 
of  Page  County,  Judge  Greenwood,  Hiram  P.  Bennett,  Wm. 
McEwen,  Col.  J.  L.  Sharp,  Hon.  A.  A.  Bradford,  L.  Lingen- 
felter,  C.  W.  McKissick,  Hon.  Benjamin  Rector,  Charles  W. 

Pierce,  Dan  H.  Solomon, Downs,  I.  M.  Dews,  George  Hep- 

ner,  W.  G.  English,  Geo.  P.  Stiles,  Marshall  Turley,  Dr.  H.  M. 
Clark,  and  others. 

"In  the  month  of  November,  Council  Bluffs  was  visited  by 
Hon.  Augustus  C.  Dodge,  Col.  Samuel  H.  Curtis,  and  other 
distinguished  citizens  of  other  States,  who  attended  and  addressed 
meetings  of  the  people  of  the  town,  warmly  advocating  the  con 
struction  of  our  contemplated  railroads,  and  the  organization  of 
Nebraska  Territory.251  In  its  issue  of  December  14,  1853,  the 


The  resolutions  of  the  meeting  urge  'an  early  extinguishment  of  the  Indian 
titles  therein.'  .  .  .  ." 

The  same  meeting  was  noticed  in  the  Boston  Journal  of  Dec.  2,  1853: 
"It  is  said  that  the  people  of  western  Iowa  are  moving  on  the  subject  of  a 
speedy  organization  of  the  Territory  of  Nebraska.  Three  counties  held 
a  meeting  on  the  subject  recently  and  a  general  convention  of  citizens 
was  called " 

251  The  following  is  an  extract  from  an  editorial  in  the  Iowa  State 
Gazette  of  Dec.  28,  1853:  ".  .  .  .  Our  readers  are  aware,  many  of  them, 
that  Senator  Dodge  visited  the  Council  Bluff  region  immediately  before 
the  meeting  of  Congress.  Although  wre  are  not  aware  of  his  object  in  so 
doing,  we  may  presume  it  was  with  reference  to  these  important  questions 
[Nebraska  Territory  and  the  Pacific  railroad].  For  we  observe  that  he 
has  already  introduced  a  bill  for  the  organization  of  the  new  Territories. 

What  its  details  and  provisions  are  we  are  not  prepared  to  say 

It  behooves  him  to  be  active  and  the  rest  of  our  delegation  likewise,  for 
the  present  is  big  with  the  fate  of  Iowa  and  indeed  the  whole  Northwest." 

The  interest  of  Iowa  in  Nebraska  is  reflected  in  the  debate  upon  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill.  Senator  Dodge  said: 

".  .  .  .  Mr.  President,  the  passage  of  the  bill  before  us  will,  in  my 
judgment,  confer  great  benefits  upon  the  nation,  the  West,  and  especially 
the  State  which  I  in  part  represent.  The  settlement  and  occupation  of 
Nebraska  will  accomplish  for  us  what  the  acquisition  and  peopling  of  Iowa 
did  for  Illinois.  Originally  I  favored  the  organization  of  one  territory; 
but  representations  from  our  constituents,  and  a  more  critical  examination 
of  the  subject  having  an  eye  to  the  systems  of  internal  improvement  which 
must  be  adopted  by  the  people  of  Nebraska  and  Kansas  to  develop  their 


178  THE  REPEAL  OF 

Council  Bluffs  Bugle  announced  that  'H.  D.  Johnson,  delegate  elect 
from  Nebraska  passed  through  our  place  on  his  way  to  Washington 
last  week.'  "  252 

Thus  as  we  approach  the  month  of  December, 
1853,  in  which  the  33d  Congress  convened,  it 
is  evident  that  powerful  and  geographically  related 
agencies  were  at  work  in  the  interest  of  a  new  terri 
torial  government  west  of  Missouri  and  Iowa.  It 
seems  highly  improbable  that  the  members  of  Con 
gress  who  had  been  conspicuous  in  the  heated  local 
discussions  relating  to  Nebraska,  which  in  Missouri 

resources  —  satisfies  my  colleague  who  was  a  member  of  the  Committee 
that  reported  the  bill,  and  myself,  that  the  great  interests  of  the  whole 
country  and  especially  our  State,  demand  that  we  should  support  the 
proposition  for  the  establishment  of  two  territories;  otherwise  the  seat  of 
government  and  leading  thoroughfares  must  have  all  fallen  south  of  Iowa." 
—  Cong.  Globe,  xxix,  382. 

In  the  House,  Hon.  Bernhart  Henn,  Representative  from  Iowa,  sup 
ported  the  measure  because  "The  bill  is  of  more  practical  importance  to  the 
State  of  Iowa,  and  the  people  of  the  district  I  represent,  than  to  any  other 
State  or  constituency  in  the  Union."  —  Cong.  Globe,  xxix,  885. 

252  Another  meeting  evidently  was  held  at  Council  Bluffs  in  December. 
The  Iowa  State  Gazette  speaks  of  a  meeting  being  held  there  on  the 
seventeenth,  composed  of  "a  respectable  number  of  citizens  of  Pot- 
tawatomie  County."  This  meeting  adopted  the  following  resolution: 
"Resolved,  That  we  heartily  approve  of  the  Nebraska  Convention  to  be 
held  at  St.  Joseph  [Mo.],  January  8  [9],  1854,  and  that  we  appoint 
twenty-five  delegates  to  attend  said  Convention  pledging  that  this  sen 
atorial  district  will  at  all  times  be  ready  to  'roll  on  the  Nebraska  ball' 

until  the  Indian  titles  are  extinguished  and  the  Territory  organized " 

Much  enthusiasm  prevailed,  says  the  account,  "and  with  three  times  three 
cheers  for  Nebraska  and  its  friends  in  Congress,  the  Convention  adjourned 
to  meet  on  the  return  of  the  delegates  from  the  St.  Joseph  Convention." 

In  January  following,  the  Democrats  of  Pottawattamie  County  adopted 
the  following  resolution:  "Resolved  that  the  immediate  organization  of 
Nebraska  and  the  establishment  of  a  territorial  government  over  its  citizens 
is  a  question  of  national  importance  and  greatly  affecting  the  interests  of 
western  Iowa,  and  we  should  be  pleased  to  have  an  expression  of  the 
people  of  the  whole  State  upon  the  subject  through  their  delegates  at  the 
State  Convention."  —  Ibid.,  Jan.  n,  1854. 


THE   MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  179 

had  become  more  heated  and  acrimonious  as  Decem 
ber  drew  near,  would  abruptly  drop  all  their  personal 
animosities  and  lose  their  active  interest  in  Nebraska. 
On  the  contrary,  the  belief  and  expectation  that  all 
the  questions  connected  with  the  Nebraska  movement 
arising  in  the  West  would  be  transferred  to  the  halls 
of  Congress  is  indicated  unmistakably  in  the  follow 
ing  editorial  from  the  Iowa  State  Gazette. 253  Al 
though  apparently  ignorant  of  Senator  Atchison'g 
recent  pledges,  the  Editor  said : 

"The  formation  of  these  new  Territories  will  probably  be 
one  of  the  most  exciting  topics  of  discussion  during  the  present 
session  of  Congress.  From  recent  indications  and  from  what  took 
place  at  the  last  session  we  may  anticipate  considerable  opposition 
to  the  measure  in  Congress,  while  on  the  part  of  our  western 
population  there  is  great  longing  to  have  the  rich  lands  of  the 
Platte  and  Kansas  valleys  laid  open  for  settlement.  Leaving  out 
that  small  class  of  our  citizens  who  are  thus  directly  interested 
in  the  settlement  of  this  Territory,  the  principal  feeling  upon  the 
subject  is  among  the  active  pro-slavery  and  anti-slavery  men.  The 
former  will  oppose  its  constitution  on  the  ground  that  under  the 
Missouri  Compromise  it  cannot  come  into  the  Union  as  a  slave 
State  and  must  therefore  add  to  the  already  preponderating  in 
fluence  of  their  adversaries ;  the  latter,  or  anti-slavery  party,  will 
urge  the  formation  of  the  Territory  as  a  means  of  'extending  the 
area  of  freedom'  and  striking  another  blow  at  the  slave  power. 
That  this  is  the  correct  view  of  the  subject  is  evident  from  what 
has  already  taken  place.  Senator  Atchison  at  the  last  session 
opposed  the  formation  of  the  Territory  avowedly  because  the  Com 
promise  precludes  the  'peculiar  institution'  from  it;  he  will  prob 
ably  take  the  same  course  at  the  present  session.  On  the  other 
hand,  Col.  Benton  who  is  suspected  of  not  being  over  friendly  to 
the  'institution'  will  war  to  the  knife  in  favor  of  the  Territory; 
it  is  in  fact  one  of  his  hobbies  and  no  man  plies  the  whip  and  spur 


253  Dec.  8,  1853. 


l8o  THE  REPEAL  OF 

harder  on  that  kind  of  cattle  than  he  does;  so  we  may  expect  to 
see  considerable  of  a  fight  upon  the  subject.  As  to  the  Indian 
title,  that  can  be  easily  disposed  of,  as  the  Commissioner  has  re 
cently  found  them  quite  disposed  to  the  transfer  of  it,  'for  a  con 
sideration.'  " 

That  the  same  expectation  was  shared  by  the 
newspapers  of  the  East,  both  North  and  South,  there 
is  abundant  evidence.  The  day  after  the  opening  of 
the  33d  Congress, 254  the  Boston  A tlas,  the  great  Whig 
organ  of  Massachusetts,  thus  commented  on  the  sit 
uation,  apparently  without  knowledge  of  Senator 
Atchison's  recent  change  of  attitude  toward  Ne 
braska. 

"In  spite  of  the  undisguised  nature  of  the  opposition  of  Sen 
ator  Atchison  of  Missouri  to  the  organization  of  this  Territory, 
it  is  very  apparent  that  this  event  can  hardly  be  much  longer 
delayed.  He  contrived  to  defeat  the  necessary  measures  for  this 
purpose  in  the  Senate  after  they  had  been  passed  by  the  House  at 
the  last  session.  He  did  not  hesitate  to  found  his  opposition  upon  his 
unwillingness  that  it  should  be  organized  as  a  free  Territory 

"Much  alarm  has  been  entertained  or  expressed  in  certain 
quarters  lest  there  might  be  danger  of  a  disregard  of  this  law 
[the  Missouri  restriction]  and  a  settled  purpose  exist  to  introduce 
slavery  into  Nebraska  in  defiance  of  it  and  to  make  it  a  slave- 
holding  Territory.  We  have  not  shared  this  alarm  for  we  have 
no  belief  that  any  attempt,  if  seriously  contemplated,  can  meet 
with  any  success  in  nullifying  a  law,  the  existence  of  which  no 
one  disputes,  the  binding  force  of  which  no  one  pretends  to  deny." 

Reference  is  then  made  to  the  meeting  of  the 
citizens  of  three  counties  in  Iowa,  and  it  is  stated  that 
"a  strong  popular  feeling  has  been  awakened  at  the 
West  in  favor  of  the  organization  of  the  territorial 
government  and  the  settlement  of  the  Territory." 

254  Dec.   6,   1853. 


THE   MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  l8l 

As  early  as  November  15,  1853,  the  Editor 
of  the  anti-slavery  New  York  Evening  Post  clear 
ly  anticipated  that  the  organization  of  Nebraska 
would  be  attempted  at  the  next  session  of  Congress 
and  incidentally  indicated  his  misinformation  regard 
ing  events  in  Missouri : 

"It   is  curious   to  see   how  much   pains   are   being   taken   in 
certain  quarters  to  prepare  the  public  mind  for  the  rejection  of 

the  application  to  organize  the  Territory  of  Nebraska 

Mr.  Atchison  ....  has  declared  his  determination  to  oppose 
the  early  organization  of  the  Territory  of  Nebraska  and  the  open 
ing  of  the  country  to  white  colonists When  pressed  in 

debate  for  his  reasons,  he  intimated  that  he  was  unwilling  to 
consent  to  the  organization  of  another  Territory  on  the  principle 

of  the  Ordinance  of    1787 This   is  the  secret   of   the 

intrigues  which  are  now  on  foot  to  delay,  under  various  pretexts, 
the  formation  of  a  regular  government  in  Nebraska,  and  to  this 
are  owing  the  endeavors  which  are  so  industriously  making  to 
create  the  impression  in  the  first  place,  that  they  are  occupied  by 
Indian  tribes  who  must  first  be  removed  before  the  settlement  of 
this  Territory  can  commence.  Mr.  Manypenny,  the  Indian  Com 
missioner  at  Washington,  seems  to  enter  into  Mr.  Atchison's 
viewrs  in  regard  to  this  question  and  labors  to  render  him  all  aid 
in  his  power  in  keeping  Nebraska  out  of  the  sisterhood  of  Terri 
tories,  and  of  course  out  of  the  Union  as  long  as  possible."  255 

The   Washington    correspondent   of    the    New 

255  The  following  occurs  in  a  letter  from  Alexander  S.  Latty  to  Salmon 
P.  Chase,  dated,  Paulding,  O.,  Nov.  i,  1853,  found  among  the  Chase  papers 
in  the  Library  of  Congress  but  not  published  in  the  Chase  Correspondence. 
After  urging  different  reasons  against  Chase's  contemplated  resignation  from 
the  Senate,  the  writer  adds:  '*...,  This  [resign]  I  hope  you  will  not  do. 
There  are  many  other  reasons  why  you  ought  not  to  do  it.  The  Pacific 
railroad,  the  organization  of  Nebraska,  and  many  other  kindred  measures 
will  require  your  assistance  and  I  have  no  doubt  but  your  successor  would 
be  found  the  willing  tool  of  Mr.  Atkinson  [Atchison]  to  defeat  the  latter 
measure.  If  either  of  two  certain  gentlemen  from  northwestern  Ohio 
should  succeed  you,  I  am  positive  that  they  would  do  so  and  they  are  aspir 
ants  for  the  office  at  present." 


1 82  THE  REPEAL  OF 

York  Journal  of  Commerce  2S6  said  in  commenting 
upon  the  recommendation  of  Commissioner  Many- 
penny  that  a  territorial  government  be  established 
over  Nebraska:257 

"While  upon  the  subject  [Manypenny's  report]  it  may  be 
well  to  mention  that  the  territorial  committees  of  both  Houses 
have  been  formed  with  a  view  to  prevent,  if  possible,  the  intrusion 
of  the  slavery  question  into  the  question  of  organizing  Nebraska 
into  a  Territory.  It  is  difficult  to  see  why  any  one  should  wish 
to  raise  the  question.  Col.  Benton  proposes  of  course  to  estab 
lish  the  Territory,  and  admit  the  State  under  the  provisions  of  the 
Missouri  Compromise  which  prohibits  slavery  north  of  the  line 
°f  S^0  30',  which  is  the  boundary  line  between  Missouri  and 
Arkansas.  It  seems,  however,  that  Mr.  Atchison  of  Missouri  will 
move  to  repeal  that  restriction  in  regard  to  Nebraska,  258  a  Terri 
tory  that  will  be  adequate  for  several  States The  [Wash 
ington]  Sentinel  remarks  that  the  committee  (i.e.  the  House  com 
mittee)  will  suppress  slavery  agitation  altogether  by  abolitionists 
and  freesoilers.  True,  but  may  not  objection  come  from  the  other 
side?  The  freesoilers  cannot  wish  anything  else  than  that  the 
matter  should  stand  as  it  is.  We  shall  see  whether  this  and  the 
Senate  committee  will  propose  a  repeal  of  the  Missouri  restriction 
for  that  will  certainly  create  agitation." 

From  the  foregoing  evidence  it  is  fair  to  infer 
that  before  Mr.  Douglas  reported  the  Kansas-Ne- 

\  braska  bill  in  January,  1854,  there  was  knowledge  on 
the  part  of  leading  newspapers  and  their  readers, 

I  East  and  West,  North  and  South,  that  Colonel  Ben- 
ton  was  actively  contesting  the  reelection  of  Senator 
Atchison;  that  the  immediate  organization  of  Ne 
braska  Territory  and  the  question  of  slavery  therein 
had  become  important  issues  in  the  Missouri  Sena- 

\  256  Writing  Dec.  14,  in  issue  of  Dec.  15,  1853. 

257  Contained  in  his  report  of  Nov.  9,  1853. 

258  The  italics  are  mine. 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  183 

torial  fight,  and  that  Colonel  Benton  would  force  the 
Nebraska  territorial  question  upon  the  attention  of 
Congress;  that  there  was  also  widespread  knowledge 
of  Senator  Atchison's  determination  to  oppose  any 
bill  for  the  organization  of  Nebraska  which  did  not 
repeal  the  Missouri  Compromise. 

With  all  these  forces  at  work — lowans,  Mis- 
sourians  and  Indians  —  the  Nebraska  question  was 
certain  to  assume  in  the  33d  Congress  an  importance 
greater  than  in  any  preceding  session,  and  in  all  prob 
ability  would  have  caused  a  renewal  of  the  slavery 
agitation  even  if  Senator  Douglas  had  not  been  in 
Congress.  That  the  establishment  of  a  territorial 
government  in  Nebraska,  whether  with  or  without 
the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  could  have 
been  delayed  longer  seems  incredible.  If  the  Terri 
tory  should  be  organized  with  the  repeal  of  the  Com 
promise,  it  would  mean  a  triumph  for  Senator  Atch 
ison  over  his  antagonist,  Benton ;  if  organized  with 
out  the  Repeal,  it  would  be  a  victory  for  Benton.  In 
either  case,  Atchison  was  bound  to  use  every  effort  to 
make  good  his  pledges  upon  the  stump  in  Missouri. 
The  question  would  inevitably  come  before  the 
Committee  on  Territories,  and  Senator  Douglas 
would  therefore  be  compelled  to  take  one  side  or 
the  other  of  the  issues  raised  by  Atchison  and  Benton. 

It  is  highly  significant  that  in  all  the  foregoing 
evidence  of  a  western  origin  of  the  Repeal  the  name 
of  Senator  Douglas  has  scarcely  been  mentioned.  It 
is  also  highly  improbable  that  he  could  have  had  any 
connection  with  the  Nebraska  movements  in  Missou 
ri,  Iowa  and  Nebraska,  and  no  connection  with  the 


184  THE  REPEAL  OF 

Repeal  movement  in  Missouri,  while  these  move 
ments  were  converging  upon  the  33d  Congress.  On 
the  fourteenth  of  May,  1853,  he  sailed  from  New 
York  City  in  the  steamship  Pacific,  bound  for  Eu 
rope;  259  and  the  entire  summer  and  autumn  of  1853, 
a  period  of  six  months,  while  Benton  and  Atchison 
were  furiously  fighting  over  Nebraska  and  the  Re 
peal  in  Missouri,  he  spent  in  European  travel.  He 
did  not  reach  Washington  until  just  a  month  before 
the  33d  Congress  convened.  26°  The  inference  there 
fore  seems  not  unwarranted  that,  in  those  pre-cable 
days,  he  remained  ignorant  of  the  development  of  the 
Nebraska  question  and  of  the  Repeal  agitation  until 
very  shortly  before  Congress  assembled. 

This  inference  is  strongly  supported  by  a  confi 
dential  letter  which  Senator  Douglas  wrote  to  his 
political  friends,  the  Editors  of  the  Illinois  State  Reg 
ister  261  -  -  a  Democratic  newspaper  published  at 
Springfield  —  a  week  after  his  return  to  Washington 
and  less  than  a  month  before  Congress  opened.  It 
was  obviously  intended  to  provide  his  journalistic 
friends  with  ammunition,  so  that  Senator  Douglas 
passes  in  review  the  measures  which  were  likely  to 
come  up  for  consideration  and  determination  at  the 

259  National    Intelligencer,    May    17,    1853.     Mr.    Douglas    sailed    in 
company  with  Hon.  Joseph  R.  Chandler,  a  Representative  from  Pennsyl 
vania,  and  Hon.  George  Briggs,  a  late  Representative  from  New  York.     A 
son  of  this  Mr.  Chandler  writes  that  his  father's  papers  which  might  be 
of  value  in  this  connection  have  all  been  destroyed  or  scattered. 

260  "Hon.  Stephen  A.  Douglas  has  returned  from  his  extended  European 
tour,   and   arrived   in  this  city  in  good   health."  —  National  Intelligencer, 
Nov.  5,  1853 ;  Wash,  corn  of  N.  Y.  Journal  of  Commerce,  writing  Nov.  7, 
in  issue  of  Nov.  9,  1853. 

261  Walker  and  Lanphier. 


THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  185 

approaching  session  of  Congress  and  explains  briefly 
his  attitude  upon  them : 262 

"Washington,  Nov.  nth,  '53. 
"Private. 
"My  dear  Friends, 

"Why  don't  you  send  me  the  Register?  I  have  not  seen 
a  copy  for  more  than  six  months.  I  am  certainly  a  subscriber 
to  it,  altho  I  may  never  have  paid  my  subscription.  Send  me  the 
Register  that  I  may  see  what  you  are  doing  and  saying.  I  know 
all  is  right  and  that  the  paper  takes  the  right  course,  yet  I  want 
to  read  it  so  much  the  more  on  that  account.  I  have  a  few  words 
to  say  personal  to  myself.  I  see  many  of  the  newspapers  are 
holding  me  up  as  a  candidate  for  the  next  Presidency.  I  do  not 
wish  to  occupy  that  position.  I  do  not  think  I  will  be  willing 
to  have  my  name  used.  I  think  such  a  state  of  things  will  exist 
that  I  shall  not  desire  the  nomination.  Yet  I  do  not  intend  to  do 
any  act  which  will  deprive  me  of  the  control  of  my  own  action. 
I  shall  remain  entirely  non-committal  and  hold  myself  at  liberty 
to  do  whatever  my  duty  to  my  principles  and  my  friends  may  re 
quire  when  the  time  for  action  arrives.  Our  first  duty  is  to  the 
cause  —  the  fate  of  individual  politicians  is  of  minor  consequence. 
The  party  is  in  distracted  condition  and  it  requires  all  our  wisdom, 
prudence  and  energy  to  consolidate  its  power  and  perpetuate  its 
principles.  Let  us  leave  the  Presidency  out  of  view  for  at  least  two 
years  to  come. 

"I  deem  it  due  to  you  as  my  old  and  confidential  friend  to 
say  thus  much  that  you  may  understand  my  position.  The  ad 
ministration  has  made  some  mistakes  —  indeed  many  mistakes  in 
its  appointments,  yet  I  have  no  personal  grievances  to  complain 
of.  I  did  not  expect  to  be  pleased  with  the  great  body  of  appoint 
ments  and  have  not  been  disappointed.  Yet  I  shall  not  judge  the 

262  This  letter  was  discovered  by  Professor  Allen  Johnson  of  Bowdoin 
College,  author  of  Stephen  A.  Douglas:  A  Study  in  American  Politics 
in  which  the  greater  part  of  the  letter  appears.  It  is  through  the  kindness 
of  Professor  Johnson  in  furnishing  me  a  complete  and  accurate  copy  of 
the  letter  that  I  am  able  to  reproduce  it  here,  with  the  permission  of  The 
Macmillan  Company. 


1 86  THE  REPEAL  OF 

administration  by  its  appointments.  If  it  stands  firmly  by  the 
faith,  if  it  is  sound  and  faithful  in  its  principles  and  measures, 
it  will  receive  my  hearty  and  energetic  support.  I  still  have  faith 
that  it  will  prove  itself  worthy  of  our  support.  It  has  difficulties 
ahead,  but  it  must  meet  them  boldly  and  fairly.  There  is  a 
surplus  revenue  which  must  be  disposed  of  and  the  Tariff  reduced 
to  a  legitimate  revenue  standard.  It  will  not  do  to  allow  the 
surplus  to  accumulate  in  the  Treasury  and  thus  create  a  pecuniary 
revulsion  that  would  overwhelm  the  business  arrangements  and 
financial  affairs  of  the  country.  The  River  and  Harbor  question 
must  be  met  and  decided.  Now  in  my  opinion  is  the  time  to  put 
those  great  interests  on  a  more  substantial  and  secure  basis  by  a 
well-devised  system  of  Tonnage  duties.  I  do  not  know  what  the 
administration  will  do  on  this  question,  but  I  hope  they  will  have 
the  courage  to  do  what  we  all  feel  to  be  right.  The  Pacific  Rail 
Road  will  also  be  a  disturbing  element.  It  will  never  do  to  com 
mence  making  Rail  Roads  by  the  federal  government  under  any 
pretext  of  necessity.  We  can  grant  alternate  sections  of  land  as 
we  did  for  the  Central  Road,  but  not  a  dollar  from  the  National 
Treasury.  These  are  the  main  questions  and  my  opinions  are 
foreshadowed  as  you  are  entitled  to  know  them.  Let  me  hear 
from  you  often  and  freely. 

"Remaining  truly  your  friend, 

"S.  A.  DOUGLAS." 

The  significance  of  this  letter  lies  chiefly  in  the 
fact  that  there  is  no  mention  of  the  organization  of 
Nebraska  Territory,  or  of  squatter  sovereignty,  or 
of  the  applicability  to  the  political  situation  of  1854 
of  any  principle  derived  from  the  Compromise  meas 
ures  of  1850.  The  inference  is  not  unwarranted  that 
the  injection  of  the  slavery  agitation  into  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill  was  unexpected  by  Douglas  as  late  as 
three  weeks  before  the  opening  of  the  first  session  of 
the  33d  Congress. 

But  if  Senator  Douglas  did  not  perceive  the  con- 


THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  187 

nection  between  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850 
and  the  political  situation  in  1853-54,  there  were  not 
a  few  who  did. 

There  is  a  widely  current  but  erroneous  notion 
that  the  doctrine  of  "repeal  by  supersedure"  incor 
porated  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  was  a  device 
invented  by  Senator  Douglas  to  meet  a  sudden  politi 
cal  emergency.  This  doctrine,  briefly  stated,  was 
that  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850  were  designed 
to  establish  a  new  principle  for  the  settlement  of  the 
slavery  question  in  all  future  Territories,  wrhich  "su 
perseded"  or  was  "inconsistent  with"  the  old  idea  of 
a  geographical  line  dividing  slave  from  free  territory, 
embodied  in  the  Compromise  of  1820.  This  doctrine 
was  not  the  invention  of  Senator  Douglas.  It  had 
been  previously  formulated  by  at  least  three  Demo 
cratic  newspapers.  One  was  perhaps  the  most  influ 
ential  Democratic  paper  in  the  North;  the 
other  two  were  influential  Democratic  papers  in 
the  South.  In  their  editorial  columns  they  had 
expressly  applied  this  doctrine  to  the  situation  pre 
sented  to  Congress  by  the  Nebraska  territorial  move 
ment.  This  had  occurred  more  than  a  month  before 
the  doctrine  was  first  proclaimed  in  Congress  by  Mr. 
Douglas's  report  accompanying  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill,  January  23,  1854.  There  is  not  the  slightest  evi 
dence  that  Mr.  Douglas  had  in  any  degree  "inspired" 
these  press  utterances.  Moreover,  they  assume  that 
the  problem  before  Congress  is  directly  the  result  of 
political  conditions  in  Missouri. 


1 88  THE  REPEAL  OF 

The  following  is  an  editorial  of  the  Richmond 
Enquirer: 263 

"From  present  indications  the  proposition  to  establish  a  terri 
torial  government  in  Nebraska  will  be  made  the  occasion  for  a 
renewal  of  anti-slavery  agitation  in  the  Federal  legislature.  It 
may  be  well,  therefore,  in  advance  to  inform  the  public  of  the 
issues  involved  in  this  question 

"When  the  conquest  of  California  and  New  Mexico  again 
brought  the  question  of  territorial  extension  before  Congress,  the 
representatives  of  the  North  repudiated  the  Missouri  Compromise 
which  they  had  theretofore  used  to  the  detriment  of  the  South, 
and  by  enforcing  an  absolute  prohibition  of  slavery  by  Congressional 
enactment,  denied  to  States  south  of  the  Compromise  line  the 
privilege  of  determining  the  condition  of  their  own  social  system. 
This  shameless  violation  of  a  solemn  agreement  by  a  party  which 
monopolized  all  the  benefits  and  repudiated  all  the  burdens  of  the 
compact  affords  but  one  illustration  of  the  uniform  and  persistent 
perfidy  of  the  North  in  its  warfare  against  the  institutions  of  the 
South. 

"But  this  was  not  the  only  instance  of  the  infraction  of  the 
Missouri  Compromise  by  the  North.  When  the  bill  for  the  estab 
lishment  of  a  territorial  government  in  Oregon  came  before  Con 
gress,  the  representatives  of  the  South  recognized  the  validity  of 
the  Missouri  Compromise  and  were  ready  to  submit  to  its  legiti 
mate  operation,  but  ....  the  representatives  of  the  North 
resolved  to  repudiate  the  Missouri  Compromise  and  to  introduce 
the  Wilmot  Proviso  into  the  Oregon  bill.  That  proposition  was 
made  and  was  met  by  a  counter  proposition  declaring  that  slavery 
was  excluded  from  Oregon  by  operation  of  the  Missouri  Compro 
mise.  The  amendment  was  rejected  and  the  representatives  of 
the  North  in  a  spirit  of  insolent  triumph  resolved  to  compel  the 
South  to  swallow  the  Wilmot  Proviso 

"Thus  did  they  deliberately  repudiate  the  Missouri  Compre 


ss  Quoted  in  the  Mississippian  of  Dec.  23,  1853.  See  also  the  Wash, 
corr.  of  the  New  York  Herald,  Jan.  2,  1854.  Compare  the  phraseology 
here  used  with  Douglas's  reply  to  the  Appeal  of  the  Independent  Dem 
ocrats,  Jan.  30,  1854,  Cong.  Globe,  xxviii,  Pt.  i,  275. 


THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  189 

mise  by  asserting  an  independent  and  inconsistent  principle  and 
by  refusing  to  discharge  the  obligations  which  it  imposed  in  favor 

of  the  South But  the  whole  story  is  not  yet  told.     We 

find  the  North  now  after  having  rejected  the  Missouri  Compro 
mise  and  after  denying  by  a  vote  in  Congress  its  efficacy  to  exclude 
slavery  from  territory  north  of  36°  30',  reasserting  now  the 
validity  of  the  Compromise  which  it  had  repudiated  and  invoking 
the  aid  of  an  obsolete  principle  to  exclude  slavery  from  the 
Territory  of  Nebraska.  But  in  regard  to  Nebraska  the  North 
commits  an  infraction  not  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  alone,  but 
violates  also  the  spirit  and  intent  of  the  Compromise  of  1850 
which  leaves  a  State  the  right  to  prohibit  or  sanction  slavery. 
....  To  preclude  the  possibility  that  Nebraska  in  organizing 
a  State  government  may  choose  to  authorize  slavery,  the  North 
now  proposes  to  force  upon  it  a  territorial  government  which 
prohibits  slavery.  In  any  event  by  foul  means  or  fair,  slavery 
must  be  excluded  from  Nebraska. 

"In  regard  to  Nebraska  at  present  the  struggle  between  the 
pro-slavery  and  anti-slavery  party  is  whether  Congress  shall  forbid 
the  existence  of  slavery  or  whether  the  decision  of  the  question 
shall  be  left  to  the  people  in  organizing  a  State  government.  Mr. 
Benton,  the  leader  of  the  Abolitionists,  insists  on  the  immediate 
establishment  of  a  territorial  government  which  shall  prohibit 
slavery.  Mr.  Atchison,  the  faithful  champion  of  the  South,  con- 
tends  that  the  people  of  Nebraska  in  organizing  a  State  govern 
ment  shall  determine  whether  slavery  shall  be  admitted  or  ex 
cluded^.  Peopled  by  immigrants  from  Missouri  and  by  the  fer 
tility  of  its  soil  inviting  the  labor  of  the  negro,  Nebraska  if 
allowed  the  free  exercise  of  its  own  discretion  will  soon  apply  for 
admission  as  a  slave  State.  It  is  to  prevent  this  natural,  and  if 
justice  be  done,  inevitable  result,  that  Mr.  Benton,  at  the  instiga 
tion  of  the  Abolitionists,  invokes  the  aid  of  the  General  Govern 
ment  to  exclude  slavery  from  Nebraska.  We  have  confidence, 
however,  that  this  free  soil  platforjn  will  be  baffled  by  the  efforts 
of  General  Atchison,  than  whom  the  South  has  not  a  more  honest, 
intrepid  and  vigilant  friend."  264 


264  The  italics  are  mine. 


190  THE  REPEAL  OF 

The  following  appeared  as  an  editorial  in  the 
Mississippian :  265 

"The  question  of  the  establishment  of  a  territorial  government 
for  Nebraska  which  has  been  raised  in  Congress  ....  will  put 
to  the  test  the  merits  claimed  for  the  Compromise  settlement  of 
1850  by  its  Southern  advocates.  It  is  well  known  that  the  South 
acquiesced  in  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850  (notwithstanding 
their  practical  effect  was  to  exclude  her  from  a  full  participation 
in  the  benefits  of  the  territories  acquired  from  Mexico)  on  the 
construction  placed  upon  it  by  its  champions  that  the  settlement 
established  the  principle  that  the  people  of  a  Territory  should 
hereafter  decide  for  themselves  when  they  came  to  be  admitted 
as  a  State  whether  or  not  slavery  should  exist  within  its  bounds.  266 
The  advocates  of  the  Compromise  contended  that  this  principle 
was  clearly  and  definitively  settled  and  as  the  price  of  it  they  were 
willing  to  submit  to  the  admission  of  California  into  the  Union, 
notwithstanding  the  irregularity  of  the  proceedings  that  led  to  it, 
with  a  constitution  inhibiting  slavery.  They  held  that  the  estab 
lishment  of  the  principle  as  the  permanent  policy  of  the  government 
would  hereafter  produce  results  highly  favorable  to  the  interests  of 
the  South;  that  in  future,  no  claim  would  be  set  up  by  the  North 
to  a  power  on  the  part  of  the  Federal  Government  to  prohibit 
slavery  in  the  Territories,  nor  to  a  right  to  refuse  to  admit  new 
States  because  they  tolerated  the  institution;  that  the  Wilmot 
Proviso  and  all  similar  schemes  having  for  their  object  the  restric 
tion  of  slavery  within  its  present  bounds  with  a  view  to  its  ultimate 
extermination,  would  be  urged  no  more;  or  if  urged  at  all,  urged 
but  to  call  down  upon  the  heads  of  their  authors  the  execration 
of  the  whole  country. 

"It  was  with  this  explanation  of  the  main  features  of  the 
Compromise  settlement  of  1820  [sic,  1850?]  and  of  the  conse 
quence  which  would  flow  from  it  that  the  Southern  people  in  the 
earnestness  of  their  desire  to  cultivate  amicable  relations  with  their 
brethren  of  the  North  consented  to  acquiesce  in,  or  abide  by,  that 
series  of  measures.  In  reply  to  the  arguments  that  by  the  law 


265  Dec.  30,  1853. 

266  The  italics  are  mine. 


THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  191 

admitting  Missouri  into  the  Union  slavery  is  prohibited  north  of 
36°  30'  and  that  but  little  could  be  expected  favorable  to  the 
South  (admitting  the  principle  of  non-intervention  to  have  been 
settled)  we  were  told  that  the  North  had  covenanted  henceforth 
to  disregard  or  to  annul  the  restriction  in  the  future  management 
of  Territories  whose  geographical  bounds  otherwise  rendered  them 
subject  to  it. 

"The  question  of  organizing  the  Territory  of  Nebraska  brings 
the  matter  to  a  test.  The  region  lies  north  of  the  line  fixed  by 
the  Missouri  Compromise.  That  law  has  never  been  repealed, 
but  the  settlement  which  led  to  its  adoption,  the  conditions  on 
which  it  was  agreed  to,,  were  repudiated  in  1850,  when  the  North 
felt  it  to  be  to  her  interest  to  repudiate  them.  And  now  the 
question  arises,  will  she  require  the  enforcement  of  the  law  of 
1820,  or  will  she  stand  by  the  settlement  of  1850?  .... 

"We  are  ....  assured  ....  that  the  anti-slaveryites  will 
again  fall  back  upon  that  repudiated  settlement  and  claim  the 
benefit  of  the  clause  inhibiting  slavery  ....  north  of  36°  30' 
in  organizing  Nebraska  Territory " 

On  the  tenth  of  December  the  following  editorial 
appeared  in  the  Albany  (N.  Y.)  Argus: 

"Among  the  subjects  to  which  the  attention  of  Congress  is 
likely  to  be  called  at  an  early  day  is  the  organization  of  Nebraska 
Territory.  A  vast  deal  of  excitement  and  unnecessary  palaver  has 
been  gotten  up  under  the  auspices  of  certain  political  manoeuvrers 
in  Missouri  and  other  western  States  upon  this  subject.  The 
Missouri  Democrat,  and  a  few  other  prints  in  that  interest  [Ben- 
tonian]  have  especially  devoted  themselves  to  an  agitation  of  the 
subject;  and  if  their  statements  might  be  credited  it  would  appear 
that  a  tremendous  combination  and  conspiracy  had  been  formed 
at  the  South  for  the  purpose  of  depriving  Nebraska  of  legal 
government  at  the  hands  of  Congress. 

"There  are  two  or  three  questions  of  no  little  moment  in 
volved  in  the  matter,  and  it  is  due  to  those  of  our  citizens  who 
have  emigrated  to  those  Territories  and  who  are  awaiting  the 
constitutional  protection  of  the  Federal  Government,  that  they 
should  be  determined  with  as  little  delay  as  possible 


192  THE  REPEAL  OF 

There  is  also  a  question  whether  the  precedent  of  non-interference 
with  negro  slavery,  as  established  in  the  Territories  by  the  Com 
promise  measures  shall  be  adhered  to,  267  or  whether  the  prohibition 
of  that  institution  shall  be  confirmed  by  Congress.  It  is  possible 
that  the  subject  may  create  some  sectional  feeling  on  the  part  of 
the  unrepentant  devotees  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso.  .  .  .  ,"268 

It  is  interesting  and  important  to  note  the  inter 
pretation  placed  by  the  New  York  Evening  Post  of 
the  same  day  upon  the  few  sentences  in  this  editorial 
referring  to  the  precedent  established  by  the  Com 
promise  of  1850: 

"The  Albany  Argus  of  this  morning  intimates  that  there  is  a 
preliminary  matter  to  be  settled  which  it  thus  states: 

"  'There  is  also  a  question  whether  the  precedent  of  non 
interference  with  negro  slavery  as  established  in  territories  by  the 
Compromise  measures  shall  be  adhered  to,  or  whether  the  prohibi 
tion  shall  be  confirmed  by  Congress/ 

"Here  is  a  new  interpretation  of  the  Compromise  opening 
a  new  quarrel,  if  there  should  be  audacity  enough  in  any  quarter 
to  adopt  it.  It  is  now  contended,  it  seems,  that  the  Compromise 
of  1850  has  repealed  the  Missouri  Compromise  prohibiting  slavery 

267  The  italics  are  mine. 

268  The  following  occurs  in  an  editorial  in  the  St.  Louis  Intelligencer 
(Whig),  entitled,  "Non-Intervention,"  as  early  as  Nov.  10,  1850:     ".    .   .    . 
Let  it  be  understood  as   a  cardinal   principle  with  both  parties,   that  the 
people   of  the   new    States   and   Territories   shall    in    all   cases   decide    for 
themselves   without   the,  intervention   of    Congress,   whether    slavery    shall 

exist   among  them In  conclusion  we  would  remind  the  Whigs 

that  in  maintaining  the  doctrine  of  non-intervention  they  are  in  fact  only 
carrying  out  faithfully  the  spirit  of  the  late  compromise  measures,  which  are 
predicated  upon  the  hypothesis  that  Congress  will  not  interfere  with  the 
question  of  slavery  in  the  Territories,  but  will  leave  the  people  to  settle 
the  question  for  themselves.     If  Whigs  and  Democrats  are  faithful  to  the 
compromise  they  must  of  necessity  maintain  the  doctrine  of  non-intervention. 
If  this  doctrine  is  abandoned  —  if  we  surrender  this  truly  national  ground, 
then    we    have    no    common    platform    on    which    Northern    and    Southern 
Whigs  can  stand,  and  the  consequence  will  be  that  we  will  be  split  into 
sectional    and    discordant    factions."     See    also    editorial    columns    of    the 
Washington  Union,  Dec.  4  and  17,  1853. 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  193 

in  the  country  north  of  36°  30'. 269  At  the  last  session  Mr. 
Atchison,  hostile  as  he  was  to  the  founding  of  a  civil  government 
in  Nebraska,  acknowledged  that  there  was  no  way  of  setting  aside 
the  provisions  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  A  method  of  getting 
rid  of  it  has  now,  it  seems,  been  invented^  but  we  do  not  believe 
that  it  will  ever  find  much  countenance  in  Congress." 

Again  on  the  fourteenth  of  December,  the  Al 
bany  Argus  had  this  even  more  explicit  editorial: 

"The  Compromise  measures  of  1850  which  so  opportunely 
quieted  the  dangerously  excited  jealousies  of  the  different  States 
and  preserved  the  Union  from  the  imminent  hazard  of  Civil  War, 
embraced  one  precedent  which  their  framers  doubtless  intended 
should  stand  as  a  guide  and  landmark  for  all  time.  "We  allude 
to  the  peculiar  feature  of  the  laws  organizing  the  territorial  Gov 
ernments  of  New  Mexico  and  Utah.  In  the  language  of  Mr. 
Webster,  'a  refusal  of  all  restrictions  upon  the  subject  of  slavery 
was  incorporated'  in  them;  and  the  words  of  the  bills  themselves, 
as  reported  by  the  Committee  of  Thirteen,  expressly  provided  that 
'no  law  should  be  passed'  by  the  respective  territorial  legislatures, 
'in  respect  to  African  slavery.'  It  was  upon  this  basis  of  non 
intervention  with  the  social  institutions  of  these  half  colonial,  half 
self-governing  dependencies  that  North  and  South  united.  It  was 
only  upon  such  a  compromise,  assured  by  the  labors  and  most 
patriotic  minds  of  the  country,  that  peace  and  union  can  be 
preserved. 

"A  precedent  thus  laid  down  can  scarcely  be  departed  from 
without  peril  in  the  future.  By  it  the  citizens  of  a  Territory 
are  left  free,  at  the  moment  of  framing  a  State  constitution,  to 
choose  and  establish  for  themselves  such  domestic  institutions  as 
accord  best  with  their  convenience  and  their  previous  preferences 
or  habits.  The  Federal  Government  exempts  and  separates  itself 
from  all  connection  with,  or  responsibility  for,  legislation  upon  the 
subject  of  slavery.  The  principle  of  self-government  is  vindicated. 
The  centralizing  tendency  of  our  federal  system  is  counteracted. 
The  assumption  of  power  to  legislate  where  there  is  no  representa 
tion  is  avoided.  Such  are  the  results  of  the  far-reaching  and 

269  Xhe  italics  are  mine. 


194  THE  REPEAL  OF 

statesmanlike  doctrine  of  the  'Nicholson  letter'  carried  into  prac 
tical  operation. 

"Such,  as  we  understand  it,  is  all  that  is  claimed  in  any 
quarter,  in  relation  to  the  proposed  organization  of  Nebraska. 
The  Missouri  Compromise  undertook  to  provide  on  the  part  of 
Congress  where  slavery  should  and  where  it  should  not  exist. 
The  Compromise  of  1850  established  the  precedent  that  without 
interference  from  Congress  it  should  exist  wherever  the  people 
of  a  State  should  have  established  it "270 

Thus  in  the  month  of  December,  1853,  almost 
at  the  psychological  moment  for  utilization  by  Sen 
ator  Atchison  and  Senator  Douglas,  had  the  doctrine 
of  supersedure  been  definitely  formulated  and  specif 
ically  applied  to  Nebraska  Territory. 


270  Two  days  later  [December  16]  the  Argus  had  this  edito 
rial:  ".  .  .  .  The  Compromise  men  of  the  North  do  not  hesitate 
to  express  it  as  their  preference  that  Nebraska  should  prohibit  slavery  as 
emphatically  as  the  State  of  New  York  has  done.  But  it  must  be  done 
by  the  people  themselves  interested,  in  proper  time  and  when  the  population 
of  the  incoming  State  shall  begin  to  be  fixed  and  settled.  They  stand 
by  the  principle  of  the  Nicholson  letter  of  General  Cass  now  and  hereafter, 
and  insist  that  by  that  rule  all  future  disputes  shall  be  settled.  The  bill 
for  the  organization  of  the  new  Territory  now  before  the  Senate  is  under 
stood  to  reaffirm  the  exclusive  and  invidious  legislation  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise,  and  no  friend  of  the  peace  and  permanence  of  our  Union 
can  fail  to  reprobate  and  oppose  the  relighting  of  a  flame  which  cannot 
be  stifled  by  official  assurances  and  which  may  defy  another  attempt  to  stay 
its  ravages." 


CHAPTER  VII 


The  Congressional  Aspects  of  the  Missouri  Contest— The  Ne 
braska  Bill  in  the  330"  Congress— The  Evidence  of  Washing 
ton  Correspondents— Pressure  upon  Douglas  to  Champion  the 
Repeal— The  Influence  of  Senator  Atchison— Report  of  Jan 
uary  4,  i854—Dixons  Amendment— The  Administration. 

Having  traced  the  local  beginnings  of  the  Ne 
braska  territorial  movement  in  the  West,  it  now  be 
comes  necessary  to  take  up  the  Congressional  aspects 
of  the  Missouri  fight  and  show  their  connection  with 
the  early  legislative  history  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill. 

On  December  5,  1853,  the  day  on  which  the  23^  \ 
Congress  opened,  Senator  A.  C.  Dodge  of  Iowa  gave 
notice  of  his  intention  to  introduce  a  bill  for  the  or 
ganization  of  a  territorial  government  for  Nebras 
ka,  271  which  he  did  introduce  on  the  fourteenth.    The 
bill  was  immediately  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Territories  of  which  Mr.  Douglas  was  the  chairman 
as  well  as  the  most  prominent  and  influential  mern^Xf 
ber. 272     In  the  House  a  Nebraska  bill,  practically 

271  Cong.   Globe,  xxviii,  PL  i,   i. 

272  Cong.  Globe,  xxviii,  Pt.  i,  44.     This  Committee  consisted  of  Doug 
las,  of  Illinois,  Gen.  Sam  Houston,  of  Texas,  Robert  W.  Johnson,  of  Arkan 
sas,  and  George  W.  Jones,  of  Iowa,  Democrats;  and  John  Bell,  of  Tennes 
see,   and   Edward   Everett,  of   Massachusetts,  Whigs.     The   Free   and   the 
Slave  States  were  thus  equally  represented  on  this  very  important  Com 
mittee. 


196  THE  REPEAL  OF 

\  the  duplicate  of  Senator  Dodge's  bill,  was  introduced 
by  Hon.  J.  G.  Miller  of  Missouri  on  the  twenty-sec 
ond  of  December, 273  and  immediately  referred  to 
the  Committee  on  Territories  of  which  Hon.  W.  A. 
Richardson  of  Illinois  was  chairman. 

The  real  significance  of  these  facts  has  been 
missed  by  historians  who,  approaching  the  origin  of 
the  Repeal  through  the  pages  of  the  Congressional 
Globe,  have  been  unduly  impressed  with  the  prom 
inent  part  played  by  Senator  Douglas.  They  have 
assumed  that  it  originated  with  a  Senator  who  had 
spent  the  summer  and  early  autumn  of  1853  in 
Europe,  and  had  returned  to  Washington  only  a 
month  before  Congress  met;  and  who  has  left  good 
evidence  that  the  reopening  of  the  slavery  agitation 
in  connection  with  Nebraska  Territory  was  unex 
pected  by  him  three  weeks  before  Congress  con 
vened.  274  Whereas  the  fact  is  that  the  questions  in 
volved  in  the  Nebraska  territorial  movement  were 
forced  upon  the  attention  of  the  committees  of  which 
Mr.  Douglas  and  his  colleague  in  the  House  were 
the  chairmen,  possibly  against  their  will  and  appar 
ently  without  much  foreknowledge  on  the  part  of 
Senator  Douglas,  by  representatives  of  the  two  States 
most  deeply  interested. 

It  is  not  strange  that  a  great  degree  of  mystery 
should  heretofore  seem  to  have  surrounded  the  re 
peal  of  the  time-honored  Missouri  Compromise. 
The  difficulty  has  been  to  get  behind  the  scenes  and 
discover  what  was  going  on  in  and  around  the  halls 

273  Cong.  Globe,  xxviii,  Pt.  i,  87. 

274  The  letter  to  Walker  and  Lanphier,  quoted  in  preceding  chapter. 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  197 

of  Congress  between  the  fifth  of  December,  and  the 
twenty-third  of  January. 27S  The  pages  of  the  Con 
gressional  Globe  record  only  results.  Of  the  process 
es  by  which  those  results  are  achieved,  there  is  seldom 
any  record.  Politicians,  as  well  as  the  Almighty, 
often  "move  in  a  mysterious  way"  their  "wonders 
to  perform."  One  cannot  expect,  in  the  nature  of 
the  case,  to  get  much  evidence  of  what  was  occurring 
in  the  corridors  and  committee  rooms  at  the  Capitol, 
and  at  the  lodgings  of  Senators  and  Representatives. 
Nevertheless  we  are  not  left  entirely  in  the  dark. 
One  source  of  information  little  used  by  previous 
writers  sheds  considerable  light  upon  what  was  tak 
ing  place  outside  the  Senate  Chamber  and  the  Hall 
of  Representatives.  Upon  the  testimony  of  the 
"Washington  Correspondents"  of  the  great  news 
papers  of  the  day,  it  must  be  admitted,  implicit  re 
liance  for  accuracy  cannot  be  placed;  but  in  the  ab 
sence  of  contradicting  evidence,  their  testimony  may 
be  entitled  to  greater  weight  than  would  otherwise 
be  the  case.  Especially  will  this  be  true  if  their 
testimony  fits  with  surprising  exactness  into  the  facts 
presented  in  the  preceding  chapters. 

"Notice  has  been  given  in  Congress  of  the  in 
troduction  of  a  bill  for  the  creation  of  a  territorial 
government  for  Nebraska,"  wrote  "Fairfax,"  the 
Washington  Correspondent  of  the  Richmond  En 
quirer  within  a  week  after  the  opening  of  Congress.276 
To  "Fairfax"  it  was  plain  that  Congress  would  wit- 

275  That  is  to  say,  between  the  opening  of  Congress  and  the  reporting 
of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  in  the  Senate. 

276  Writing  Dec.   n,  in  issue  of  Dec.   16,  1853. 


198  THE  REPEAL  OF 

ness  a  renewal  of  the  slavery  agitation  as  a  direct  re 
sult  of  political  conditions  in  Missouri. 

"This  subject,"  he  went  on  to  say,  "is  one  of  great  interest 
and  will  create  much  feeling.  The  freesoilers  led  on  by  Mr.  Ben- 
ton  will  make  every  effort  to  hasten  on  a  territorial  organization, 
hoping  thereby  to  be  able  to  exclude  slavery  from  it.  This  gen 
tleman  announced  some  time  ago  in  Missouri  that  Nebraska  was 

open  for  settlement The  facts  relating  to  the  matter  should 

be  understood  and  the  objects  of  Mr.  Benton  and  those  who 
act  with  him  cannot  be  mistaken.  To  prevent  the  Southerners 
from  carrying  their  property  into  Nebraska,  to  have  another 
free  State  touching  the  slave  State  of  Missouri,  to  influence  the 
next  August  elections  in  Missouri,  and  the  presidential  campaign 
of  1856:  these  are  the  objects  of  Mr.  Benton  and  his  freesoil 
allies." 

Writing  ten  days  later  the  same  Correspondent 
again  called  attention  to  the  subject  of  Nebraska  and 
to  Mr.  Atchison's  attitude:277 

".  .  .  .  The  President  of  the  Senate,  Mr.  Atchison,  is  pledged 
by  his  speeches  before  the  people  of  Missouri  to  move  the  repeal 
of  the  law  prohibiting  slavery  in  the  Territory  north  of  the  parallel 
°f  36°  30'.  He  will  oppose  the  Nebraska  territorial  bill  and 
insist  upon  the  admission  of  slavery  into  the  Territory,  if  it  be 
established  at  all,  both  on  the  original  constitutional  ground,  and 
also  upon  the  ground  that  it  would  be  prejudicial  to  the  interests 
of  Missouri  to  be  surrounded  by  a  cordon  of  free  States.  Mr. 
Douglas  will  soon  report  the  Nebraska  bill  and  we  shall  witness 
a  renewal  thereupon  of  slavery  agitation.  In  fine  as  long  as  slavery 
exists  it  will  be  a  subject  of  political  or  religious  or  sectional  or 
philanthropic  agitation.  Let  it  be  known  that  at  all  events  the 
great  feature  of  the  opening  of  the  33d  Congress  is  the  slavery 
discussion  and  that  too  in  a  House  remarkable  beyond  its  prede 
cessors  for  men  of  experience  and  moderation  and  general  ability." 


277  Writing  Dec.  24,  in  issue  of  Dec.  26,  1853.    The  italics  are  mine. 


THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  199 

Even  the  distant  Missouri  Republican  had  its 
Correspondent  at  Washington.278 

"Old  Bullion  was  not  so  far  out,"  he  wrote,  "when  he  said 
slavery  and  Nebraska  would  be  the  questions  of  the  session.  The 
proceedings  in  respect  to  the  Territories  are  yet  somewhat  vague 
and  indefinite  but  some  very  interesting  and  important  propositions 
have  been  laid  before  the  Committee  by  the  outsiders  who  assume 
to  regulate  their  deliberations',  and  from  the  present  aspect  of  this 
subject,  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  the  freesoilers  have  rather 
caught  a  Tartar  with  this  Nebraska  question  and  don't  know 
what  to  do  with  him.  It  is  well  known  that  Mr.  Atchison,  Col. 
Manypenny  and  the  conservatives  on  the  question  that  lies  under 
and  beyond  the  organization  of  Nebraska  were  willing  to  waive  the 
agitation  this  winter Now,  however,  the  ball  is  opened. 


278  Writing  Dec.  31,  in  issue  of  Jan.  7,  1854.  Almost  a  week  before 
this  correspondent  had  written:  "The  war  between  Col.  Benton  on  the 
one  hand,  and  Atchison,  Gwin  [Senator  from  Cal.],  Phelps,  Lamb  [two 
Representatives  from  Missouri],  and  the  general  body  of  the  regular 
Democracy  on  the  other  hand,  goes  merrily  on.  Nebraska  and  the  Pacific 
railroad  may  be  considered  the  field  of  strife,  the  seat  in  the  Senate,  and 
sundry  local  offices  in  Missouri,  the  bones  over  which  the  growling  and 
fighting  is  immediately  going  on.  A  few  days  since,  Mr.  Benton  made  a 
characteristic  article  in  the  Intelligencer  assailing  Senator  Gwin  and  the 
officers  in  the  army  because  Gwin  had  read  letters  from  some  of  the 
latter  declaring  that  the  more  southern  route  was  the  best  for  the  railroad 
by  a  course  of  reasoning  clear,  direct,  and  conclusive  as  a  buffalo  trail 
to  a  salt  lick.  Col.  Benton  showed  that  all  the  opposition  to  his  central 
route  sprang  from  a  deadly  hostility  to  him  and  Fremont,  which  hostility 
originated  in  the  fact  that  they  had  not  come  into  public  life  through  the 
West  Point  Gate.  Dr.  Gwin  replies  in  four  columns  of  the  same  paper 
charging  several  things  upon  Benton  and  among  the  rest  alleging  that  his 
central  route  is  a  humbug  which  if  persevered  in  will  carry  the  railroad 
entirely  out  of  Missouri.  Somebody  remarked  to  Mr.  Benton  yesterday  that 
Gwin's  reply  had  rather  used  him  up,  to  which  he  is  said  to  have  re 
sponded:  'Sir,  I  will  slice  him  into  fragments.  Sir,  I  will  demolish  him. 
Yes,  Sir!'  ....  Mr.  Benton  with  all  his  talents  and  information  on 
public  affairs  is  like  the  'fretful  porcupine'  pointing  a  quill,  often  tipped 
with  gall,  at  every  passer-by.  The  destiny  of  the  sons  of  Ishmael  seems 
to  be  his,  'he  has^turned  his  hands  against  every  man  and  every  man's 
hand  is  against  him!'"  In  issue  of  Dec.  23,  1853.  Compare  this  last  with 
Rogers's  Benton,  315  ff. 


200  THE  REPEAL  OF 

The  freesoiiers  have  set  forth  their  program,  which  is  'Nebraska 
immediately  if  not  sooner/  .    .    .    ." 

It  is  not  an  unwarranted  inference  from  this  com 
munication  that  some  pressure  was  being  brought  to 
bear  upon  the  Committee  on  Territories  —  which,  so 
far  as  practical  legislation  wras  concerned,  meant  Mr. 
Douglas  —  to  report  the  Nebraska  bill  in  such  a 
form  that  it  would  bear  a  direct  relation  to  the  po 
litical  situation  in  Missouri.  Indeed  one  might  very 
reasonably  expect  that  such  pressure  would  be 
brought  to  bear  on  Senator  Douglas.  We  have  seen 
that  the  Nebraska  territorial  question  was  bound  to 
and  did  come  before  the  Committee  on  Territories 
when  Congress  met.  Senator  Douglas  was  thus 
obliged  to  act,  and  to  act  either  with  the  conservative, 
slavery-restrictionist  element  in  the  Democratic  par 
ty,  or  with  the  radical,  pro-slavery  wing.  He  him 
self  declared  afterwards  that  he  had  been  no  "vol 
unteer"  in  the  matter:  "I  have  been  Chairman  of 
the  Committee  on  Territories  for  the  past  ten  years," 
he  said,  "and  it  was  my  duty  to  act  in  this  matter  and 
bring  forward  this  bill.  /  was  no  volunteer  in  this 
matter.  It  devolved  upon  me  as  a  duty"  279  Whence 
came  this  outside  pressure  and  what  were  the  consid 
erations  which  determined  with  which  wing  of  the 
party  he  would  cooperate? 

279  The  italics  are  mine.  This  declaration  was  made  by  Mr.  Douglas 
in  the  course  of  a  speech  at  the  Illinois  State  Agricultural  Fair  on  the 
third  of  October,  1854,  five  months  after  the  passage  of  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill.  The  speech  is  reported  in  the  Missouri  Republican,  Octo 
ber  6,  1854.  Mr.  Lincoln  was  present,  and  the  next  day  replied  to  Mr. 
Douglas  in  a  four-hour  speech.  There  is  also  a  brief  account  of  these 
speeches  in  the  Weekly  Democratic  Press  (Chicago),  October  14,  1854. 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  2OI 

Some  time  after  the  Repeal,  28°  Senator  Atchison 
claimed  that  he  came  to  Washington  with  pledges 
to  the  people  of  Missouri  hardly  cold  upon  his  lips 
to  support  a  Nebraska  territorial  bill  on  condition 
that  it  should  repeal  the  Missouri  Compromise.  He 
therefore  desired  to  be  chairman  of  the  Committee 
on  Territories  when  the  Nebraska  bill  was  to  be  in 
troduced,  with  the  object,  one  may  fairly  assume,  of 
obtaining  full  credit  in  Missouri  for  his  efforts  in 
this  direction.  With  this  purpose  in  mind,  Mr. 
Atchison  claimed  to  have  had  an  interview  with 
Senator  Douglas  at  which  he  informed  Mr.  Douglas 
of  what  he  desired,  the  introduction  of  a  bill  for 
Nebraska  like  the  one  he  had  promised  to  vote  for, 
and  that  he  would  like  to  be  chairman  of  the  Com 
mittee  on  Territories  in  order  to  introduce  such  a 
measure.  If  he  could  get  that  position,  he  would 
immediately  resign  as  President  pro  tempore  of  the 
Senate.  Mr.  Douglas,  according  to  Atchison's  story, 
requested  time  to  consider  the  matter,  saying  that  if, 
at  the  expiration  of  a  given  time,  he  could  not  intro 
duce  such  a  bill  as  Senator  Atchison  proposed  and 
which  would  at  the  same  time  accord  with  his  own 
sense  of  right  and  justice  to  the  South,  he  would 
resign  as  chairman  of  the  Committee  in  Democratic 
caucus,  and  exert  his  influence  to  get  Atchison  ap 
pointed. 

No  good  reason  exists  for  rejecting  the  fore 
going  claim  of  Senator  Atchison.  There  is  nothing 

280  Sept.  20,  1854,  in  a  speech  at  Atchison  in  Kansas  Territory.  Ap 
pendix  E  contains  two  accounts  of  this  speech  and  a  discussion  of  Douglas's 
denial  of  its  correctness. 


202  THE  REPEAL  OF 

in  it  which  is  improbable,  or  unreasonable.  On  the 
contrary  it  was  most  natural  in  view  of  Senator  Atch- 
ison's  obvious  interest  in  the  subject.  If,  to  his  per 
sonal  interest,  the  further  fact  be  added  that  Atchison 
and  Douglas  were  close  friends, 281  that  Douglas  en 
tertained  a  strong  dislike  of  Benton, 282  that  within 
the  two  years  preceding  Douglas  on  more  than  one 
occasion  had  gone  over  into  Missouri  to  aid  the  Atch 
ison  faction  against  Benton, 283  the  probability  of 
Atchison  seeking  the  cooperation  of  Mr.  Douglas  at 
this  critical  moment  becomes  almost  a  certainty. 

Assuming  that  Atchison  sought  to  influence  Sen 
ator  Douglas,  it  is  easy  to  see  how  powerful  an  appeal 
he  could  make  for  the  incorporation  into  Dodge's  Ne 
braska  bill,  when  in  Douglas's  committee,  of  a  clause 
which  in  effect  should  repeal  the  Compromise  re 
striction.  It  is  fair  to  argue  that  Senator  Atchison's 
political  necessity  might  have  been  so  presented  as  to 
appear  as  Douglas's  great  political  opportunity.  In 
the  first  place,  by  championing  the  Repeal  Mr.  Doug- 

281  See  Washington  correspondent  of  the  Missouri  Republican  quoted 
on  pages  220,  221. 

282  ibid. 

283  The  following  which  occurs  in  the  course  of  a  long  letter  of  F.  P. 
Blair,  Jr.,  to  the  Missouri  Democrat,  dated  March  i,  1856,  inferentially  at 
least   supports    the    idea   of    a    friendship    existing    between    Atchison    and 
Douglas,  or  at  least  the  existence  of  a  feeling  of  hostility  between  Douglas 
and  Colonel  Benton: 

"Mr.  Douglas  especially  has  taken  the  trouble,  on  several  occasions 
within  the  last  two  years,  to  visit  the  State  of  Missouri,  to  give  aid  and 
comfort  to  the  'Nullifiers  and  Rottens,'  the  'Shinplaster  Democracy,'  who 
have  been  warring  on  Old  Bullion  here  since  the  advent  of  Tyler.  They 
deserve  to  be  betrayed  who  harbored  and  cherished  this  restless  intriguer 

whilst  he  was  assailing  the  most  illustrious  of  living  Democrats " 

See  Rev.  Pol.  dction,  76. 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  203 

las  would  be  assisting  a  political  and  personal  friend 
in  dire  straits.  Furthermore,  he  would  be  placing 
the  radical  wing  of  the  Southern  Democracy  under 
obligation  to  himself,  and  thus  would  very  mate 
rially  increase  his  chances  of  obtaining  the  pres 
idential  nomination  in  1856.  The  principle  of 
popular  sovereignty  would  afford  ground  upon 
which  the  rank  and  file  of  the  factions  in  Mis 
souri  might  unite  in  harmony,  since  each  faction  had 
but  recently  declared  in  favor  of  that  method  of  de 
ciding  the  "vexed"  question;  and  this  would  enhance 
the  popularity  of  the  measure  in  other  portions  of 
the  West.  Ready  at  hand  was  a  plausible  justifica 
tion  for  attaching  the  repeal  feature  to  the  Nebraska 
bill;  Democratic  newspapers  had  already  interpreted 
the  Compromise  of  1850  as  applicable  to  Nebraska. 
Loyalty  to  that  Compromise  as  thus  interpreted  could 
be  made  a  test  of  political  orthodoxy  in  New  York 
where  the  party  was  suffering  from  serious  internal 
dissensions.  Moreover,  to  this  basis  for  the  Repeal 
objections  from  either  of  the  two  national  parties 
would  be  forestalled  by  the  doctrine  of  super- 
sedure,  for  both  parties  stood  committed  to  the  final 
ity  of  the  Compromise  of  1850.  If,  in  addition  to 
this,  it  be  conceded  that  Mr.  Douglas  was  a  sincere 
believer  in  the  dogma  of  popular  sovereignty,  it  re 
quires  no  abnormal  imagination  to  conceive  how 
effectively  a  personal  and  political  friend  could  have 
appealed  to  Mr.  Douglas  to  assume  official  responsi 
bility  for  the  Repeal.  In  a  word,  it  might  have  been 
presented  as  a  turning  point  in  Senator  Douglas's 
political  career,  •ne  path  seemed  to  lead  to  the 


204  THE  REPEAL  OF 

highest  political  reward,  the  realization  of  his  pres 
idential  aspirations.  The  other  seemed  to  involve 
resignation  from  the  chairmanship  of  the  Committee 
on  Territories,  in  those  years  perhaps  the  most  prom 
inent,  perhaps  the  most  important,  Committee  in 
the  Senate,  with  a  consequent  loss  of  prestige  in  both 
the  West  and  the  South.  Even  to  a  less  "practical" 
politician  than  Mr.  Douglas  the  appeal  might  well 
prove  irresistible.  That  Senator  Douglas  should 
have  hesitated  and  weighed  the  consequences  was 
most  natural,  for  clearly  the  situation  marked  a  crisis 
of  which  he  must  have  been  fully  conscious. 284 

Senator  Atchison  did  not  arrive  in  Washington 
until  late  in  November, 285  and  whatever  conversa 
tion  upon  this  subject  he  may  have  had  with  Mr. 
Douglas  doubtless  occurred  in  December  and  prob 
ably  during  the  three  weeks 286  after  the  Walker  and 
Lanphier  letter  and  while  the  Dodge  bill  was  in 
the  hands  of  Douglas's  committee.  Toward  the 
end  of  that  period  it  began  to  leak  out  that  some 
thing  unusual  was  under  consideration.  The  Cor 
respondent  of  the  Baltimore  Sun  wrote:287 

".  .  .  .  The  Senate  Committee  on  Territories  has  it  [the 
Nebraska  bill]  under  consideration  and  will  probably  report  in 

284  if  proof  of   this  were  needed,   there   is   the   well-known  letter  of 
Senator  Archibald  Dixon  of  Kentucky  to  Henry  S.  Foote,  which,  stripped 
of  its  melodramatic  garb,  certainly  indicates  hesitation   and  consciousness 
of   a  crisis  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Douglas.     This  letter  is   given  in  Flint's 
Life  of  Douglas,  138  if;  Mrs.  Dixon's  True  History  of  the  Missouri  Com 
promise,  445-448. 

285  Atchison's  letter  to   the   editor  of  the   Missouri  Examiner,   in   the 
Washington   Union,  Dec.  23,  1853. 

286  From  Dec.  14,  1853,  to  January  4,  1854. 

287  Quoted   in  the   Cincinnati  Inquirer,  Jan.   3,   1854. 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  205 

favor  of  the  organization  of  more  than  one  territorial  government. 
A  plan  has  been  proposed  also  to  avoid  the  opposition  to  the  bill 
which  has  been  threatened  by  Mr.  Atchison  in  his  addresses  to  the 
people  of  Missouri.  Some  means  will  be  adopted  for  the  pre 
vention  of  the  threatened  revival  of  the  slavery  question  in  this 
bill." 

About  the  same  time  the  Correspondent  of  the 
Charleston  Courier  had  evidently  been  admitted  to 
inside  information,  for  he  wrote  to  his  paper:288 

"The  speeches  of  Senator  Atchison  in  Missouri  pledge  him 
and  his  constituents  mutually  to  raise  a  storm  here  against  the 
slavery  restriction  when  the  subject  of  Nebraska  Territory  shall 
come  up.  That  the  question  is  certain  to  come  off  I  have 
heard  from  all  quarters.  I  have  conversed  with  some  members 
of  the  Senate  committee  on  territories,  however,  and  they  think 
they  will  be  able  to  give  the  bill  a  form  which  will  suit  all  parties 
in  relation  to  the  admission  of  slaves.  They  will  put  the  project 
on  the  basis  of  the  Compromise  of  1850,  as  applicable  to  the  Ter 
ritories  of  New  Mexico  and  Utah " 

By  the  fourth  of  January,  Senator  Douglas  seems 
to  have  reached  a  decision.  On  that  day  he  reported 
back  to  the  Senate  the  Nebraska  bill  introduced 
by  Senator  Dodge.  It  had  made  no  reference  to  the 
subject  of  slavery;  but  it  now  carried  important 
amendments  relating  to  that  subject  and  was  accom 
panied  by  a  special  report  of  an  unusual  nature. 289 
The  amendments  constituted  a  new  section : 

"Section  21.  And  be  it  farther  enacted,  That  in  order  to 
avoid  all  misconstruction,  it  is  hereby  declared  to  be  the  true 
intent  and  meaning  of  this  act,  so  far  as  the  question  of  slavery  is 
concerned,  to  carry  into  practical  operation  the  following  prop- 


288  Writing  Dec.  28,  1853,  in  issue  of  Jan.  2,  1854.  The  italics  are  mine. 
See  also  Washington  correspondent  of  the  N.  Y.  Journal  of  Commerce,  in 
issue  of  Dec.  27,  1853,  and  Rhodes's  Hist,  of  U.  S.,  i,  431  n. 

289  Cong.  Globe,  xxviii,  Pt.  i,  222. 


206  THE  REPEAL  OF 

ositfons  and  principles  established  by  the  compromise  measures  of 
1850,  to-wit: 

''First:  That  all  questions  pertaining  to  slavery  in  the  Terri 
tories  and  in  the  new  States  to  be  formed  therefrom,  are  to  be  left 
to  the  decision  of  the  people  residing  therein,  through  their  appro 
priate  representatives. 

"Second:  That  'all  cases  involving  title  to  slaves,'  and  'ques 
tions  of  personal  freedom/  are  referred  to  the  adjudication  of  the 
local  tribunals,  with  the  right  of  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States. 

"Third:  That  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  and  laws 
of  the  United  States,  in  respect  to  fugitives  from  service,  are  to  be 
carried  into  faithful  execution  in  all  the  'organized  Territories,'  the 
same  as  in  the  States." 

In  the  report  which  accompanied  the  bill,  29° 
and  of  which  Mr.  Douglas  was  probably  the  author, 
the  Committee  took  occasion  to  commend  to  the  Sen 
ate  the  principal  amendments  to  the  Dodge  bill  upon 
the  ground  that  by  those  amendments 

"The  principles  established  by  the  compromise  measures  of 
1850,  so  far  as  they  are  applicable  to  territorial  organizations,  are 
proposed  to  be  affirmed  and  carried  into  practical  operation  within 
the  limits  of  the  new  Territory," 

The  Committee  then  went  on  to  state  what  they 
regarded  as  having  been  the  object  and  intent  of  the 
Compromise  measures  of  1850: 

"In  the  judgment  of  your  Committee,  those  measures  were  in 
tended  to  have  a  far  more  comprehensive  and  enduring  effect  than 
the  mere  adjustment  of  the  difficulties  arising  out  of  the  recent 
acquisitions  of  Mexican  territory.  They  were  designed  to  estab 
lish  certain  great  principles,  which  would  not  only  furnish  adequate 
remedies  for  existing  evils,  but,  in  all  time  to  come,  avoid  the 
perils  of  a  similar  agitation,  by  withdrawing  the  question  of  slavery 
from  the  halls  of  Congress  and  the  political  arena,  and  committing 


290  Senate  Reports,  ist  Sess.,  ssd  Cong.,  i,  No.  15. 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  207 

it  to  the  arbitrament  of  those  who  were  immediately  interested  in, 
and  alone  responsible  for  its  consequences." 

With  a  view  to  making  their  action  conform  to 
what  they  regarded  as  the  settled  policy  of  the  Gov 
ernment,  "sanctioned  by  the  approving  voice  of  the 
American  people,"  the  Committee 

"deemed  it  their  duty  to  incorporate  and  perpetuate,  in  their 
territorial  bill,  the  principles  and  the  spirit  of  ....  [the  com 
promise]  measures." 

The  discussion  of  the  bill  then  went  over  until 
the  twenty-third  of  January.  In  the  meantime,  how 
ever,  Senator  Archibald  Dixon  of  Kentucky,  a  Whig 
who  was  serving  out  the  unexpired  term  of  Henry 
Clay,  gave  notice  that  when  the  bill  should  come  up 
for  consideration  he  would  offer  an  amendment, 291 
in  the  form  of  an  added  section,  providing  that  the 
Missouri  Compromise  restriction  upon  slavery 

"shall  not  be  so  construed  as  to  apply  to  the  Territory  con 
templated  by  this  act,  or  to  any  other  Territory  of  the  United 
States;  but  that  the  citizens  of  the  several  States  and  Territories 
shall  be  at  liberty  to  take  and  hold  their  slaves  within  any  of  the 
Territories  of  the  United  States,  or  of  the  States  to  be  formed 
therefrom,  as  if  the  said  .  .  [prohibition]  had  never  been  passed." 

In  other  words,  Senator  Dixon,  although  a  Whig, 
proposed  to  apply  to  this  new  Nebraska  Territory 
the  simon-pure  Calhoun  doctrine,  which  Senator 
Atchison  had  been  supporting  in  Missouri. 

On  the  twenty-third  of  January,  Mr.  Douglas 
called  up  the  Nebraska  bill,  and  for  the  Committee 
on  Territories,  reported  a  substitute  bill  for  the  one 
reported  on  January  4.  This  new  bill  divided  the 
territory  described  in  the  earlier  bill  and  provided 


291  Cong.   Globe,  xxviii,  Pt.   i,   175. 


208 


THE  REPEAL  OF 

^"•m tf^^^ 

for  the  organization  of  the  two  Territories,  Kansas 
and  Nebraska.292  The  bill,  henceforth  known  as  the 

<292  Cong.  Globe,  xxviii,  Pt.  i,  221.  The  following  story  of  the  way  in 
which  the  organization  of  two  Territories  came  about  is  told  by  Hadley  D. 
Johnson.  Incidentally  it  indicates  that  Mr.  Douglas  was  quite  susceptible 
to  outside  influences. 

"Before  starting  [for  Washington]  ....  a  number  of  our  citizens 
who  took  such  a  deep  interest  in  the  organization  of  a  Territory  west  of 
Iowa,  had  on  due  thought  and  consultation  agreed  upon  a  plan  which  I 
had  formed,  which  was  the  organization  of  two  Territories  west  of  the 
Missouri  river,  instead  of  one  as  had  heretofore  been  contemplated,  and  I 
had  traced  on  a  map  hanging  in  the  office  of  Johnson  &  Cassidy  a  line 
which  I  hoped  would  be  the  southern  boundary  of  Nebraska,  which  it  did 

finally  become,  and  so  continues  to  the  present  time Hon.  A.  C. 

Dodge,  Senator  from  Iowa,  who  had  from  the  first  been  an  ardent  friend 
and  advocate  of  my  plan,  introduced  me  to  Judge  Douglas,  to  whom  I 
unfolded  my  plan,  and  asked  him  to  adopt  it,  which  after  mature  considera 
tion,  he  decided  to  do,  and  he  agreed  that,  as  Chairman  of  the  Committee 
on  Territories,  he  would  report  a  substitute  for  the  pending  bill,  which 
afterwards  he  did  do,  and  this  substitute  became  the  celebrated  'Nebraska 
Bill,'  and  provided,  as  you  know,  for  the  organization  of  the  Territories  of 

Kansas  and  Nebraska "  Compare  with  Senator  Dodge's  remarks, 

quoted  in  note  251. 

"In  our  negotiations  as  to  the  dividing  line  a  good  deal  of  trouble 
was  encountered,  Mr.  [Thomas]  Johnson  and  his  Missouri  friends  being 
very  anxious  that  the  Platte  river  should  constitute  the  line,  which  obviously 
would  not  suit  the  people  of  Iowa,  especially  as  I  believed  it  was  a  plan 
of  the  American  Fur  Company  to  colonize  the  Indians  north  of  the  Platte 
river.  As  this  plan  did  not  meet  with  the  approbation  of  my  friends 
or  myself,  I  firmly  resolved  that  this  line  should  not  be  adopted.  Judge 
Douglas  was  kind  enough  to  leave  that  question  to  me,  and  I  offered 
to  Mr.  Johnson  the  choice  of  two  lines,  first,  the  present  line,  or  second, 
an  imaginary  line  traversing  that  divide  between  the  Platte  and  the  Kaw. 

"After  considerable  parleying,  and  Mr.  Johnson  not  being  willing  to 
accept  either  line,  I  finally  offered  the  two  alternatives  —  the  fortieth  degree 
of  north  latitude,  or  the  defeat  of  the  whole  bill,  for  that  session  at  least. 
After  consulting  with  his  friends,  I  presume,  Mr.  Johnson  very  reluctantly 
consented  to  the  fortieth  degree  as  the  dividing  line  between  the  two  Terri 
tories,  whereupon  Judge  Douglas  prepared  and  introduced  the  substitute. 
.  .  .  ."  —  Nebr.  State  Hist.  Soc.  Trans,  and  Reports,  ii,  80.  See  Douglas's 
explanation  of  the  division  given  in  his  speech  of  Jan.  23,  1854,  Cong. 
Globe,  xxviii,  Pt.  i,  221. 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  209 

Kansas-Nebraska  bill,293  contained  the  following 
section : 

"Section  14 The  Constitution,  and  all  laws  of  the 

United  States  which  are  not  locally  inapplicable,  shall  have  the 
same  force  and  effect  within  the  said  Territories  as  elsewhere  in 
the  United  States,  except  the  eighth  section  of  the  act  preparatory 
to  the  admission  of  Missouri  into  the  Union,  approved  March  6, 
1820,  which  was  superseded  by  the  principles  of  the  legislation  of 
18^0,  commonly  called  the  compromise  measures,  and  is  declared 
inoperative" 

Historians  have  been  somewhat  puzzled  by  the 
fourth  of  January  report,  by  the  Dixon  amendment, 
and  by  the  substitution  of  a  bill  creating  two  Ter 
ritories  and  expressly  repealing  the  Missouri  Com 
promise. 

If  we  take  into  consideration  the  difficult  prob 
lem  confronting  Senator  Douglas  after  the  opening 
of  Congress,  'his  natural  hesitation  before  committing 
himself  to  the  solution  which  the  interests  of  Senator 
Atchison  demanded,  and  the  desire  of  the  Iowa  Dele 
gate,  Hadley  D.  Johnson,  for  two  Territories,  the 
puzzle  becomes  simplified. 

It  is  not  unfair  to  regard  the  fourth  of  January 
bill  and  report  as  in  the  nature  of  an  experiment. 
Mr.  Douglas  has  now  decided  to  pursue  the  course 
desired  by  the  Senator  from  Missouri.  Just  which 
consideration  was  decisive,  it  is  impossible  to  say. 
But  having  reached  a  decision  Mr.  Douglas  may  well 
have  been  troubled  with  serious  doubts  as  to  the  best 
method  of  formulating  the  legislation  necessary  to 
effect  the  Repeal.  He  would  naturally  take  the 


293  For  a  brief  history  of  the  change  in  title  from  "Nebraska-Kansas" 
bill  to  the  "Kansas-Nebraska"  bill,  see  Kan.  Hist.  Soc.   Trans.,  ix,  117  n. 


210  THE  REPEAL  OF 

greatest  pains  to  choose  language  as  mild,  as  plausi 
ble  as  possible,  and  not  likely  to  provoke  the  hostility 
of  the  anti-slavery  wing  of  his  party.  The  Re 
peal  must  be  disguised  under  the  most  carefully  se 
lected  phraseology  in  order  to  avoid,  if  possible,  a 
renewal  of  the  slavery  agitation.  The  bill  must  be 
made,  acceptable  to  all  parties;  and  so  he  attempts  a 
compromise.  Hence  the  extraordinary  pains  be 
trayed  in  this  extraordinary  report  to  gloss  over  the 
real  significance  of  what  was  being  done ;  hence  the 
mild  and  circumlocutory  phraseology.  Mr.  Doug 
las  is  feeling  his  way,  endeavoring  to  ward  off  agita 
tion.  The  bill  and  report  of  January  4  constitute  a 
vain  attempt  to  accomplish  the  Repeal  by  a  sort  of 
compromise  measure  based  upon  an  analogy  be 
tween  the  divergent  views  in  1850  regarding  the 
status  of  slavery  under  Mexican  law  in  the  territory 
acquired  from  Mexico,  and  the  divergent  views  in 
1854  regarding  the  validity  of  the  Missouri  Compro 
mise  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  territory  acquired 
from  France. 

His  efforts  were  in  vain.  The  anti-slavery  lead 
ers  at  once  took  alarm.294  The  pro-slavery  leaders 
were  dissatisfied  at  the  ambiguous  language.  And  so 
Senator  Dixon,  another  friend  of  Senator  Atchi- 
son,  gave  notice  of  his  amendment  repealing  the 
Missouri  Compromise  in  the  most  explicit  terms. 29S 

294  Hence  the   "Appeal  of  the  Independent  Democrats   in   Congress," 
Cong.  Globe,  xxviii,  Pt.  i,  281. 

295  "On  examining  that  bill  [Nebraska  bill  of  January  4]  it  struck  me 
that  it  was  deficient  in  one  material  respect;  it  did  not  in  terms  repeal  the 
restrictive  prohibition  in  regard  to  slavery  embodied  in  the  Missouri  Com 
promise.     This,  to  me,  was  a  deficiency  that  I  thought  it  imperiously  neces 
sary  to  supply:"  —  Dixon  to  Foote,  in  Flint's  Life  of  Douglas,  139. 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  211 

There  is  no  evidence  upon  the  point,  but  it  is 
not  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  Mr.  Atchison  or 
his  friends  may,  for  the  purpose  of  influencing 
Mr.  Douglas,  have  instigated  this  action  by  Senator 
Dixon,  who,  although  a  Whig,  when  it  came  to  slav 
ery,  "knew  no  Whiggery .  and  knew  no  Democ 
racy."  296  It  would  be  shrewd  politics  to  startle  Sen 
ator  Douglas,  to  make  him  apprehensive  that  his 
political  thunder  was  to  be  stolen,  and  by  a  Whig! 
If  therefore  he  wished  to  turn  the  Repeal  to  his  own 
political  profit  there  must  be  no  ambiguous  hedging, 
no  measure  the  legal  effect  of  which  could  be  open 
to  question.  At  any  rate,  there  is  evidence  that  Sen 
ator  Douglas  was  disconcerted  by  Senator  Dixon's 
manoeuvre. 297  This  convinced  him  that  the  radicals 
were  determined  to  push  the  Repeal  whether  with 
or  without  his  help,  and  that  if  he  was  to  make  politi 
cal  capital  out  of  it,  the  time  had  arrived,  at  least  so 
far  as  the  language  of  the  bill  was  concerned,  to  come 
out  boldly,  unreservedly  and  unequivocally  in  sup 
port  of  the  Repeal.  So  within  a  week  after  Senator 
Dixon's  notice  Mr.  Douglas  reported  the  substitute, 
or  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  of  January  23,  repealing  the 
Missouri  Compromise  in  terms  clear  and  unmistak 
able,  and  so  satisfactory  to  the  radical  Senator  Dixon 
that  he  withdrew  his  amendment. 298  By  the  twenty- 

296  Cong.  Globe,  xxviii,  Pt.  i,  240. 

297  "My   amendment  seemed  to  take  the  Senate   by  surprise,   and  no 
one  appeared  more  startled  than  Judge  Douglas  himself."  —  Dixon  to  Foote. 

298  "The  Senator  from  Kentucky,  on  the  sixteenth  of  January,  submitted 

an  amendment  which  came  square  up  to  the  repeal That  amendment 

probably    produced    some    fluttering    and    some    consultations.     It    met    the 
views  of  Southern  Senators,  and  probably  determined  the  shape  which  the 


212  THE  REPEAL  OF 

third  of  January,  therefore,  the  Rubicon  is  crossed: 
henceforth  there  must  be  no  retreating,  no  equivocat 
ing,  if  Mr.  Douglas  expected  to  gain  anything.  That 
he  met  the  Whirlwind  of  wrath  which  ensued  as  suc 
cessfully  as  he  did  is  perhaps  the  best  commentary 
upon  his  courage  and  cleverness  as  a  politician  and 
his  ability  as  a  debater  and  popular  orator. 

But  before  committing  himself  finally  and  ir 
revocably  to  the  Repeal,  Mr.  Douglas  and  those  more 
personally  interested  in  the  success  of  the  measure 
realized  the  essential  importance  of  securing  the  sup 
port  of  the  Administration.  In  the  week  between 
the  Dixon  amendment  and  the  twenty-third  of  Jan 
uary,  this  support  was  secured.  The  account  of  the 
way  in  which  it  was  brought  about  as  told  by  the  Cor 
respondent  of  the  New  York  Herald  2"  is  not  only 
interesting  but  significant  for  the  prominence  which 
it  gives  to  Senator  Atchison  in  accomplishing  the 
desired  result;  also,  as  will  appear  later,  for  the  prom 
inence  given  to  the  names  of  Senators  Hunter  and 
Mason  of  Virginia. 

" .   .    .   .  The  Cabinet  was  in  session  all  day  yesterday  and  to 
a  late  hour  in  the  evening  discussing  the  merits  of  the  Nebraska 

bill   and  the  amendment  proposed  by  Senator   Dixon 

The  result  of  the   Cabinet   deliberations  yesterday  has   been   an 

bill  has  finally  assumed.  Of  the  various  mutations  which  it  has  under 
gone,  I  can  hardly  be  mistaken  in  attributing  die  last  [Jan.  23]  to  the 

amendment  of  the  Senator  from  Kentucky I  know  of  no  cause 

which  will  account  for  the  remarkable  changes  which  the  bill  underwent 
after  the  sixteenth  of  January,  other  than  that  amendment,  and  the  deter 
mination  of  Southern  Senators  to  support  it,  and  to  vote  against  any  pro 
vision  recognizing  the  right  of  any  territorial  legislature  to  prohibit  the 
introduction  of  slavery."  —  Chase  in  Senate,  Feb.  3,  1854.  Cong.  Globe, 
xxix,  135. 

299  Writing  Jan.  22,  in  issue  of  Jan.  23,  1854. 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  213 

agreement  to  have  an  amendment  offered  in  the  Senate  by  way  of 
compromise  adding  to  the  2ist  section  of  the  Nebraska  bill  a 
proviso  to  the  effect  that  the  rights  of  persons  and  property  shall 
be  subject  only  to  the  restrictions  and  limitations  imposed  by  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  the  acts  giving  govern 
ments,  to  be  adjusted  by  a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States " 

Writing  on  the  twenty-third  of  January,  30°  the 
day  on  which  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  was  substi 
tuted,  the  same  Correspondent  said: 

"The  past  twenty- four  hours  have  witnessed  a  complete 
somersault  of  the  President  and  Cabinet  on  the  Nebraska  matter. 
In  order  to  understand  the  whole  matter  we  must  give  a  brief 
narrative.  The  amendment  which  was  sent  you  yesterday  was 
submitted  by  Mr.  Breckenridge  of  Kentucky  and  Mr.  Phillips 
of  Alabama  to  Judge  Douglas,  who,  it  was  understood,  was  pre 
pared  with  an  amendment  declaring  the  Missouri  Compromise 
inoperative.  The  same  amendment  he  offered  to-day.  Mr.  Doug 
las  stated  that  he  had  no  particular  objections  to  the  Cabinet 
amendment,  if  the  South  would  consent  to  accept  it;  for  he  con 
sidered  his  bill  as  originally  reported  in  fact  amounting  to  an 
abrogation  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  The  gentlemen  then 
called  upon  several  leading  men,  Messrs.  Atchison,  Mason,  Hunt 
er,  [the  italics  are  mine]  and  others,  and  discovered  that  the 
Cabinet  amendment  would  not  go  down  at  all.  This  fact  having 
been  communicated  to  the  President,  he  begged  his  friends  to 
get  the  leading  members  together  for  consultation  yesterday  (Sun 
day).  The  result  of  this  consultation  was  an  agreement  that  the 
amendment  presented  to-day  by  Judge  Douglas  should  be  agreed 
upon  and  the  South  would  resist  any  other  amendment  upon  the 
bill.  [Here  the  amendment  is  quoted.]  ....  It  will  be 
seen  that  it  does  not  use  the  word  'repeal'  ....  but  substitutes 
the  words  'supersedes'  and  'inoperative.'  This  is  done  to  avoid 
the  opposition  of  the  ultra  Southern  men  who  contend  that  the 
Missouri  law  is  unconstitutional  and  who  would  therefore  refuse 


300  in  issue  of  Jan.  24,  1854. 


214  THE  REPEAL  OF 

to  'repeal'  an  unconstitutional  enactment,  a  mere  quibble  of  course 
as  to  words. 

"Mr.  Atchison,  Hunter,  Mason,  Douglas,  Bright,  Brecken- 
ridge,  Phillips,  and  perhaps  some  others,  accordingly  repaired 
yesterday  afternoon  to  the  White  House  to  see  the  President, 
and  tell  him  the  result  of  their  deliberations.  The  President, 
however,  having  probably  heard  of  his  supreme  court  amendment, 
told  the  gentlemen  that  he  had  'religious  scruples  about  discussing 
the  subject  on  Sunday.'  The  gentlemen  did  not  appreciate  the 
difference  between  the  propriety  of  the  President  directing  them 
to  discuss  the  matter,  Sunday  though  it  was,  and  his  joining  in 
the  discussion  himself,  then  stated  through  Mr.  Atchison,  that  if 
the  President  declined  to  discuss  the  proposition,  they  would  take 
it  for  granted  that  he  favored  it  and  would  regard  the  amend 
ment  abrogating  the  Missouri  Compromise  as  an  Administration 
measure.  Upon  this  the  President  spoke  and  after  sundry  gyra 
tions,  agreed  that  the  bill  should  be  reported,  and  said  the  Ad 
ministration  would  then  take  ground.  The  gentlemen  left  with 
the  understanding  that  the  Administration  would  take  ground  in 
its  favor." 

On  the  second  of  April  the  Correspondent  of 
the  Missouri  Republican  wrote: 301 

".  .  .  .  The  assent  and  support  of  Gen.  Pierce  had  been 
obtained  before  the  bill  was  introduced  and  when  it  was  after 
wards  thought  necessary  to  change  its  phraseology,  Pierce  was 
again  consulted  and  drew  the  amendment  by  which  the  Missouri 
act  was  to  be  'superseded.'  It  was  thought  advisable  by  Douglas 
and  Atchison  to  induce  the  President  to  commit  himself  in  this 
manner  in  order  to  avoid  risk  of  his  withdrawing  his  countenance 
after  the  battle  should  be  joined.  They  therefore  insisted  upon 
this  course,  and  Pierce  with  great  good  nature  complied.  With 
the  famous  clause  repealing  the  Missouri  Compromise  in  his  own 


301  In  issue  of  April  10,  1854.  See  also  the  Boston  Atlas  editorial, 
May  16,  1854;  letter  of  Salmon  P.  Chase  to  E.  S.  Hamlin,  Jan.  23,  1854, 
in  "Chase  Correspondence,"  in  Am.  Hist.  Assn.  Report,  1902,  ii,  256;  Wil 
son's  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power,  ii,  382-383;  New  York  Evening 
Post,  Oct.  20,  1855,  quoted  in  Kan.  Hist.  Soc.  Trans.,  ix,  120  n. 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  215 

hand-writing  Gen.  Pierce  cannot  recant  his  promise  nor  refuse  the 
assistance  of  his  Democratic  bodyguard  in  the  House  to  support 
and  carry  it  where  that  sort  of  strength  was  most  required  and 
where  he  alone  could  command  it." 

Outside  the  Senate  Chamber  Senator  Atchison 
was  evidently  playing  an  active  and  important  part 
in  bringing  about  the  Repeal ;  and  this  illustrates  the 
importance  of  looking  beyond  the  pages  of  the  Con 
gressional  Globe  to  discover  the  real  history  of  the 
repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  From  the 
Globe  it  might  be  inferred  that  Senator  Atchison  had 
little  to  do  with  the  Repeal,  since  he  took  almost  no 
part  in  the  debate  upon  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill. 
The  Globe  indicates  that  he  made  only  two  very  brief 
speeches 302  and  that  these  speeches  were  not  directed 
to  the  principal  topic  of  debate  but  to  the  Clayton 
amendment  whereby  aliens  were  to  be  excluded  from 
political  privileges  in  the  new  Territories. 303  His 

302  March   2,    and    May   24 ;    Cong.    Globe,   xxix,    301 ;    ibid.,   xxviii, 
Pt.   ii,   1303. 

303  The  correspondent  of  the  Missouri  Republican  writing  March  6, 
1854,  in  issue  of  March  14,  stated  that  Atchison  had  inspired  the  Clayton 
amendment,  and  then  went  on  to  say:    "Atchison's  object  was  this:    Benton 
will  be  compelled  to  vote  for  the  bill  as  an  alternative  to  political  martyr 
dom.     Benton's  chief  strength  is  with  the  German  Democrats  of  St.  Louis 
and  vicinity.  Mr.  Atchison  not  only  does  not  like  these  Red  Republicans,  but 
cordially  hates  them  and  the  sentiment  on  their  part  is  cordially  reciprocated. 
He  is  willing  therefore  to  give  them  a  proof  of  his  affection  under  the  fifth 
rib ;  but  would  not  go  out  of  his  way  to  do  it  but  that  he  thinks  that  through 
their  ribs  he  can  reach  the  vitals  of  Old  Bullion.     Now  by  the  amendment 
adopted  the  newly  arrived  brethren  of  these  Germans  will  be  kept  out  of 
Nebraska  or  they  will  be  excluded  from  interfering  with  the  native  citizens 
on  the   slavery   question.     Benton   must  take  or   reject   the   bill   with   this 
feature.     If  he  adopts  it,  the  Germans  cut  him;   if  he  votes   against  the 
bill,  Missouri  repudiates  him.     Upon  the  whole  it  would  seem  that  Atch 
ison  has  got  him." 

Atchison  voted   for  this  amendment  but  did  not  instigate  Clayton  to 


2l6  THE  REPEAL  OF 

silence  however  is  not  at  all  inconsistent  with  the  idea 
that  he  exerted  a  powerful  influence  in  shaping  this 
piece  of  legislation. 304  It  may  in  part  be  explained 
by  the  fact  that  as  President  pro  tempore  of  the  Senate 
after  the  death  of  Vice-President  King,  Mr.  Atchison 
as  presiding  officer  could  hardly  be  expected  to,  and 
as  a  matter  of  fact  did  not,  participate  in  debate  as 

introduce  it.  When  the  bill  came  back  to  the  Senate  for  concurrence  in  the 
House  amendments,  among  which  was  the  omission  of  the  Clayton  amend 
ment,  Senator  Atchison  explained  briefly  why  he  was  willing  to  concur: 

"There  is  no  constitutional  question  in  my  opinion  involved  either  by 
voting  for  or  against  this  amendment.  It  is  a  mere  question  of  policy; 
and  that  question  of  policy  I  am  willing  to  yield  for  the  sake  of  a  higher 
principle  contained  in  this  bill.  Sir,  I  would  vote  for  this  bill,  although 
there  might  be  not  only  one  but  one  thousand  obnoxious  principles  con 
tained  in  it.  I  would  vote  for  it  because  it  blots  out  that  infamous,  yes,  sir, 
I  think  it  is  a  proper  term  to  be  used ;  that  infamous  restriction  passed 
by  the  Congress  of  1820,  commonly  called  the  Missouri  Compromise,  passed 
when  the  State  which  I  now  have  in  part  the  honor  to  represent,  asked 

admission  into  the  Union  of  these  States Yes,  sir,  if  this  bill 

contained  one  thousand  obnoxious  principles,  with  the  repeal  of  that  in 
famous  'compromise,'  as  it  is  called,  I  should  vote  for  it.  When  this  is 
done,  we  shall  have  achieved  what,  after  thirty  years  of  struggle,  has 
only  been  consummated  at  this  session. 

"As  I  said  before,  I  believe  that,  as  a  matter  of  policy,  none  but 
American  citizens,  native-born,  or  naturalized,  should  be  entitled  to  vote 
or  to  hold  office  in  this  country;  but  still  I  am  willing  to  yield  this; 
and  as  a  Southern  man,  as  representing  a  State  more  deeply  interested  in 
the  passage  of  this  bill,  perhaps,  than  any  other  State  in  the  Union,  I  say 
that,  practically,  it  will  have  no  effect  upon  the  institutions  of  these 

territories "  —  Cong.  Globe,  xxviii,  Pt.  ii,  1303.  The  italics  are 

mine. 

304  In  the  recent  debates  upon  the  railway  rate  bill,  Senator  Aldrich 
of  Rhode  Island  took  no  conspicuous  part;  but  no  one  will  venture  to  say 
that  he  did  not  exert  a  very  important  influence  in  shaping  that  piece  of 
legislation. 

Vice-President  King  died  April  18,  1853,  before  he  had  taken  the 
oath  of  office;  Senator  Atchison  was  thereupon  elected  President  pro 
tempore  at  the  opening  of  the  33d  Congress.  Pearce  of  Maryland  and 
Atchison  were  the  only  Senators  in  this  Congress  who  had  been  in  the 
Senate  for  ten  consecutive  years.  —  National  Intelligencer,  Dec.  24,  1853. 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  217 

actively  as  many  other  Senators.  Furthermore  it  is 
not  always  the  talkers,  the  debaters  of  the  House  or 
Senate  who  are  the  most  influential  members  of  Con 
gress.  Atchison  and  Benton,  for  example,  were  rep 
resentatives  of  two  types  of  men  to  be  found  in 
every  deliberative  body.  The  former  preferred 
the  less  conspicuous  but  not  less  potent  and  more 
difficult  role  of  influencing  legislation  through  per 
sonal  appeals.  Benton  chose  the  more  conspicuous 
stage  of  the  speech-maker.  As  Senator  Atchison, 
with  JBenton  in  mind,  truly  said:  "stormy  speeches 
and  bills  full  of  attractive  promises  the  people  can 
be  made  to  know  all  about;  but  the  unknown  labor 
in  committee  and  in  Congress  necessary  to  command 
success  by  making  measures  understood,  the  people 
....  cannot  be  made  fully  to  appreciate." 

On  the  sixth  of  February,  the  bill  then  being 
under  consideration  in  the  Senate,  Mr.  Douglas 
moved  to  amend  the  substitute  bill  reported  on  the 
twenty-third  of  January,  by  striking  out  from  Sec 
tion  14  the  words,  "which  was  superseded  by,"  and 
inserting  in  their  place  the  words,  "which  is  incon 
sistent  with."  The  clause  will  then  provide,  said 
Mr.  Douglas, 

"that  the  Constitution  and  laws  not  locally  inapplicable  shall 
have  the  same  force  in  the  Territory  as  elsewhere,  except  the 
eighth  section  of  the  Missouri  act,  'which  is  inconsistent  with  the 
principles  of  the  legislation  of  1850,  commonly  called  the  compro 
mise  measures,  and  is  hereby  declared  inoperative.'  This  is  the 
express  idea  conveyed  in  the  original  words,  but  I  prefer  to  make 
it  plainer."  305 


305  Cong.  Globe,  xxviii,  Pt.  i,  343. 


21 8  THE  REPEAL  OF 

Considerable  discussion  followed  as  to  the  rel 
ative  merits  of  the  two  phrases,  ''superseded  by"  and 
''inconsistent  with,"  in  which  Senators  Cass  and 
Stuart  of  Michigan,  Badger  of  North  Carolina,  and 
Walker  of  Wisconsin,  participated. 306  The  matter 
then  went  over  until  the  next  morning.  In  the  mean 
time  Senator  Douglas  had  an  opportunity  to  take 
counsel  with  the  friends  of  the  bill,  and  when  the 
Senate  reconvened  the  next  day  Mr.  Douglas  had 
perfected  his  amendment.  He  rose  and  stated  that 
'he  had  drawn  an  amendment  which  he  believed 
would  meet  the  approbation  of  the  friends  of  the  bill. 
He  therefore  moved  to  amend  the  fourteenth  section 
by  striking  out  the  words, 

".  -  .  .  which  [the  Missouri  Compromise  act]  was 
superseded  by  the  principles  of  the  legislation  of  1850,  commonly 
called  the  compromise  measures,  and  is  hereby  declared  inop 
erative," 

and  inserting  the  words, 

"which,  being  inconsistent  with  the  principle  of  non-inter 
vention  by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the  States  and  Territories,  as 
recognized  by  the  legislation  of  1850,  commonly  called  the  com 
promise  measures,  is  hereby  declared  inoperative  and  void,  it  being 
the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  this  act  not  to  legislate  slavery 
into  any  territory  or  state,  nor  to  exclude  it  therefrom;  but  to 
leave  the  people  thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their 
domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States." 

"I  move  that  amendment  with  the  general  con 
currence  of  the  friends  of  the  measure"  said  Mr. 
Douglas:  "it  will  apply  to  both  Territories."  The 


306 


Cong.  Globe,  xxviii,  Pt.  i,  353  ff. 


THE   MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  219 

amendment  was  adopted  on  the  fifteenth  of  Febru 
ary.307 

With  this  vote  it  was  in  fact  determined  308  that 
the  Missouri  Compromise  should  be  repealed  as  Sen 
ator  Atchison  had  suggested.  But  so  far  as  the  offi 
cial  record  shows,  Stephen  A.  Douglas  and  not  Mr. 
Atchison  was  the  author  of  the  Repeal. 


,  1854;  Cong.  Globe,  xxviii,  Pt.  i,  353.  'The  italics  are  mine. 

Of  the  thirty-five  Senators  who  voted  for  the  amendment,  twenty-three 
were  Democrats  and  twelve  were  Whigs;  twelve  were  Northern  or  Free 
State  Democrats,  and  one  a  Free  State  Whig.  Of  the  ten  who  voted 
against  the  amendment,  all  but  one,  Houston  of  Texas,  were  from  Free 
States ;  five  were  Whigs,  three  were  Democrats,  and  two,  Freesoilers. 
Ibid.,  421.  Senate  Journal,  ist  Sess.,  33d  Cong.,  188. 

308  Although  the  bill  underwent  amendment  in  other  respects  during 
the  long  debates  in  the  Senate  and  the  House,  this  important  section  re 
mained  unaltered. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

The  Congressional  Aspects  of  the  Missouri  Contest  (continued) 
-How  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill  with  the  Repeal  Affected 
Colonel  Benton-Senator  Atchison  s  Letter  Reviewing  the  Cam 
paign-Colonel  John  A.  Parker  s  (f Secret  History  of  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  Bill"— Testimony  of  Francis  P.  Blair,  Jr.— Senator 
Atchison,  the  Real  Author  of  the  Repeal. 

It  is  not  difficult  now  to  perceive  the  intimate 
relation  which  the  amended  Dodge  bill  of  January  4 
sustained  to  the  desires  of  Senator  Atchison  and  to  the 
Missouri  senatorial  contest.  The  Correspondent  of 
the  New  York  Journal  of  Commerce  wrote  the  next 
day:309 

"The  Nebraska  bill  reported  by  Senator  Douglas  is  destined 
to  create  renewed  excitement  as  to  the  slavery  question,  but  its 
provisions  have  been  well  considered,  and  I  am  glad  to  say,  meet 
with  general  approbation.  //  is  said  that  Mr.  Atchison  and  Mr. 
Everett  will  support  the  bill,  and  the  friends  of  the  Compromise 
of  1850  are  called  upon  to  maintain  it  and  thus  carry  out  the 
principles  of  that  pacification The  Administration  ap 
proves  of  the  measure,  but  was  not  consulted  in  regard  to  it  be 
fore  the  Senate  Committee  on  Territories  had  agreed  upon  it. 
....  If  this  bill  should  pass  it  will  settle  the  question  as  to  the 
future  Territories." 

The  Correspondent  of  the  Baltimore  Sun,  writ 
ing  on  the  same  day,  said:310 

309  Writing  Jan.   5,  in  issue  of  Jan.  6,  1854.     The  italics   are  mine. 
See  also  Washington  correspondent  of  the  New  York  Herald,  in  issue  of 
Jan.  2,  1854. 

310  In  issue  of  Jan.  6,  1854.     The  italics  are  mine. 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  221 

"Senator  Douglas  is  entitled  to  the  thanks  of  the  country  for 
the  discreet  manner  in  which  he  has  solved  the  embarrassing 
questions  attending  the  organization  of  the  Territory  of  Nebraska. 
If  my  information  is  correct  the  bill  is  assented  to  by  Mr.  Atchison 
who  was  pledged  before  the  people  of  Missouri  to  resign  his  seat 
rather  than  agree  to  the  establishment  of  the  Territory  with  the 
slavery  restriction.  Ion." 

Clear  as  it  seems  in  the  minds  of  these  Corres 
pondents  that  the  bill  of  January  4  had  a  bearing 
upon  the  Missouri  political  situation  and  the  wishes 
of  Senator  Atchison,  that  fact  appears  still  more  con 
clusively  in  the  important  communication  of  the  Cor 
respondent  of  the  Missouri  Republican  written  two 
days  after  the  report:311 

"The  Nebraska  bill  from  the  Senate  committee  continues  to 
excite  a  profound  sensation.  It  repeals  the  Missouri  Compromise 
as  to  the  prohibition  of  slavery  north  of  latitude  36°  30'  by 
applying  one  of  the  clauses  of  the  Compromise  acts  of  1850.  This 
will  occasion  a  furious  debate  and  ....  will  perhaps  render 
the  session  of  1853-54  as  celebrated  in  the  history  of  the  dissension 
upon  slavery  as  that  which  was  distinguished  by  the  pacification 

of  1850 The  bill  will  of  course  pass  the  Senate.     In  the 

House  it  will  encounter  a  very  formidable  opposition.  However, 
on  surveying  the  condition  of  things,  seeing  that  the  repeal  of  the 
Missouri  Compromise,  placed  by  its  advocates  upon  the  adherence 
to  that  of  1850,  and  that  the  Administration  is  so  rigidly  pledged 
to  resist  all  projects  of  the  freesoilers  or  those  who  sympathize 
with  freesoilism  in  even  the  most  remote  degree,  I  cannot  doubt 
that  this  bill  will  pass.  It  is  obviously  the  plan  adopted  by  the 
Atchison  party  to  this  dispute,  because  Atchison  and  Douglas 
are  inseparable  friends,  and  because  no  definite  action  has  yet 
been  taken  in  Richardson's  committee  of  the  House  on  the  subject. 
Richardson  is  a  long  tried  and  ardent  personal  friend  of  Douglas 
and  perhaps  hates  Benton  as  either  that  Senator  or  Atchison.  I 
infer  from  these  relations  between  the  parties  that  it  has  been 
311  Writing  Jan.  6,  in  issue  of  Jan.  13,  1854.  The  italics  are  mine. 


222  THE  REPEAL  OF 

arranged  to  let  the  whole  matter  be  settled  in  the  Senate  and  that 
Richardson  will  report  no  bill,  or  at  least  withhold  any  that  may 
be  formed  until  the  fate  of  Douglas's  bill  should  be  virtually  de 
cided.  It  is  well  known  to  be  the  fact  that  the  project  of  three 
Territories,  instead  of  one,  was  suggested  and  discussed  at  Doug 
las's  house,  and  after  a  good  deal  of  anxious  consideration  was 
given  up  because  certain  parties  of  influence  could  not  be  recon 
ciled  to  the  ejection  of  the  southern  Indians  in  the  country  west 
of  Arkansas." 

How  this  "plan  adopted  by  the  Atchisonian 
party,"  and  embodied  in  the  bill  and  report  of  Jan 
uary  4,  bore  upon  the  old  fight  over  the  senatorial 
succession  in  Missouri  is  easily  explained.  Benton 
had  come  to  Washington  at  the  opening  of  Congress 
the  ardent  champion  before  the  people  of  western 
Missouri  of  a  territorial  government  for  Nebras 
ka,  assuming  that  slavery  would  be  prohibited  in 
the  new  Territory.  If  the  Senate  should  pass  the 
Nebraska  territorial  bill  repealing  the  Compromise, 
the  matter  would  at  once  come  before  the  House  of 
Representatives  of  which  Colonel  Benton  was  then 
a  member,  and  he  would  be  compelled  to  face  a 
dilemma.  If  he  supported  the  Nebraska  bill  with 
the  repealing  clause,  he  would  go  counter  to  his  well- 
known  f  reesoil  opinions  and  sympathies ;  and  in  con 
sequence  he  would  lose  the  support  of  the  rank  and 
file  of  the  slavery  restrictionists  in  the  ensuing  August 
elections  in  Missouri.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  he 
should  oppose  the  Nebraska  bill  with  the  repeal 
clause,  he  would  go  counter  to  'his  recent  pledges  to 
bring  about  the  immediate  establishment  of  a  terri 
torial  government  in  Nebraska,  and  consequently 
would  be  certain  to  lose  the  support  of  the  populous 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  223 

pro-slavery  counties  in  the  western  part  of  the  State 
which  were  most  deeply  interested  in  Nebraska  Ter 
ritory.  Either  course  involved  the  loss  of  an  im 
portant  political  following  in  his  fight  for  restoration 
to  the  Senate.  This  is  brought  out  in  what  the  Cor 
respondent  of  the  Missouri  Republican  wrote  on  the 
tenth  of  January : 312 

"Benton's  position  ....  will  be  full  of  difficulty.  He  has 
said  so  much  in  favor  of  the  immediate  settlement  of  that  region 
that  he  can  hardly  justify  himself  before  any  Missouri  constit 
uency,  if  he  opposes  the  bill,  and  yet  it  repeals  the  Missouri  Com 
promise,  the  original  Wilmot  Proviso.  Douglas  argues  that  the 
Compromise  measures  are  a  new  constitution  adopted  by  Congress 
for  the  people  and  therefore  override  all  former  compromises. 
How  can  Mr.  Benton  escape  the  dilemma  in  which  Douglas's 
argument  together  with  Douglas's  bill  places  him?  But  most 
of  his  friends,  including  the  freesoilers  in  the  House  and  Senate 
who  swear  by  his  coat-tails  expect  that  he  will  swallow  the 
argument  and  bill  at  a  dose.  I  fully  believe  that  he  wrill  vote 
for  it  [a  prediction  which  proved  to  be  incorrect]  and  all  the 
rest  of  the  Missouri  delegation." 

Viewed  from  the  Atchison  standpoint,  there  was 
grave  danger  that  the  mild,  ambiguous  phraseology 
of  the  fourth  of  January  might  fail  to  accomplish 
Atchison's  purpose  to  place  Colonel  Benton  upon  the 
horns  of  such  a  dilemma  as  would  be  certain  to  kill 
him  politically  in  Missouri.  Senator  Dixon  and 
doubtless  others  feh  that  "the  bill  did  not  in  terms 
repeal  the  restrictive  prohibition  in  regard  to  slavery 
embodied  in  the  Missouri  Compromise."  There  was 
the  possibility,  in  other  wrords,  that  a  politician  so 
resourceful  as  Benton  might  support  the  bill  and 
find  a  loophole  by  which  to  escape  from  the  trap 

312  In  issue  of  Jan.   18,   1854. 


224  THE  REPEAL  OF 

set  by  his  enemies.  At  least  the  Editor  of  the  Mis 
souri  Republican  appeared  to  hold  this  opinion;  for 
later,  this  paper  stated  that  "Benton  has  been  playing 
a  two-faced  game  at  Washington.  It  is  admitted  at 
one  time  that  he  was  in  favor  of  Douglas's  Nebraska 
bill.  Hale  so  undersood  him  and  Beecher  lamented 
the  weakening  which  induced  him  to  take  this 
course."  313 

The  language  of  the  repealing  clause  must  there 
fore  be  stiffened,  stripped  of  any  ambiguity,  if  it 
were  to  accomplish  Senator  Atchison's  purpose.  Ac 
cordingly  the  substitute  bill  of  the  twenty-third  de 
clared  in  clear  and  explicit  terms  the  repeal  of  the 
Missouri  Compromise.  There  was  now  no  escape 
for  Benton. 

4  ....  Seeing  the  Whig  delegation  from  Missouri  united 
in  favor  of  the  Nebraska  bill  and  that  the  Democratic  delegation 
will  also  vote  for  it,  knowing  that  he  has  no  longer  any  chance 
of  a  return  to  the  Senate  from  Missouri  he  has  determined  upon 
playing  for  a  higher  stake.  He  will  vote  against  the  Nebraska  bill, 
and  speak  against  it,  and  for  giving  up  all  hope  of  the  senatorial 
office  in  Missouri  he  expects  to  be  rewarded  with  the  freesoil  and 

abolition  nomination  for  President  in  1856 The  poison 

which  Gardiner  administered  to  himself  only  a  few  squares  from 
the  capitol  where  Benton  is  to  make  this  speech  and  give  his  vote 
against  the  Nebraska  bill,  was  no  more  suddenly  fatal  to  his 
life  and  reputation,  than  will  be  this  speech  and  vote  of  Benton 
upon  his  senatorial  prospects  in  Missouri.  All  that  his  worst 
enemy  could  ask  is  that  he  may  so  speak  and  vote."  314 

"Vote  against  the  Nebraska  bill  and  speak 
against  it"  315  Colonel  Benton  did,  thus  doing  "all 

313  March   14,    1854. 

314  Editorial  in  the  Missouri  Republican,  March  14,  1854. 

315  April  25,  1854.     Cong.  Globe,  xxviii,  Pt.  ii,  986;  ibid.,  xxix,  557. 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  225 

that  his  worst  enemy  could  ask."  The  day  after  his 
speech  in  the  House  against  the  bill,  the  Corres 
pondent  of  the  Missouri  Republican  wrote: 316 

".  .  .  .  Yesterday  and  today  may  be  considered  'field  days' 
in  the  great  war  which  has  broken  out  between  the  Administra 
tion  and  Col.  Benton.  Old  Benton  opened  yesterday  from  all 
his  batteries  using  red-hot  balls  as  well  as  bombs,  grape  and  can 
ister.  His  guns  were  as  large  as  that  which  burst  on  the  Prince 
ton.  Today  the  government  organ,  the  Union,  replied  from 
Paixhans  of  the  largest  class,  loaded  to  the  muzzle.  The  air  was 
filled  with  the  noise  and  smoke  of  the  infuriated  combatants. 
....  It  would  have  done  you  good  to  have  seen  the  happy 
faces  of  John  P.  Hale,  and  old  man  Giddings,  Mr.  Chase,  Sum- 
ner,  Truman  Smith,  Washburn  of  Maine,  and  troops  of  that 
class  of  men  literally  surrounding  him  and  cheering  him  on, 

laughing  when  he  smiled,  scowling  when  he  frowned 

All  eyes  are  turned  upon  the  State  of  Missouri.  Will  the  Dem 
ocrats  of  that  State  or  any  considerable  number  of  them  desert 
the  Democratic  party  and  the  Administration  by  following  Benton 
in  this  wild  freak?  is  the  universal  inquiry.  The  general  opinion 
here  is  that  they  will  not,  but  that  Col.  Benton  will  withdraw 
from  the  contest  for  the  senatorship  and  rely  upon  the  power  of 
the  abolitionists  and  freesoilers  at  St.  Louis  to  reelect  him  to  the 
House.  The  Administration  believes  that  his  conduct  will  be 
repudiated  by  its  friends  in  St.  Louis,  as  well  as  by  those  of  the 
State  now  that  he  has  thrown  off  the  mask  and  openly  assumed 
his  position  with  the  freesoilers." 

Colonel  Benton,  however,  did  not  retire  from 
the  senatorial  contest.  But  the  result  of  the  August 
legislative  elections  was  such  that  when  the  Legis 
lature  convened  in  joint  session  for  the  election  of  a 
successor  to  Senator  Atchison  forty-one  unsuccessful 
ballots  were  taken;  and  the  Legislature  finally  ad 
journed  without  having  elected  any  one.  During  the 

316  Writing  April  26,  in  issue  of  May  4,  1854.     The  italics  are  mine. 


226  THE  REPEAL  OF 

greater  part  of  the  balloting  Colonel  Benton  stood 
lowest  of  the  three  leading  candidates. 317  This  was 
his  last  great  political  battle.  His  contest  for  the 
Governorship  in  1856  was  a  forlorn  hope,  and  shortly 
after  this  contest  he  died. 318 

If  further  evidence  were  needed  to  establish  the 
conclusion  that  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compro 
mise  in  connection  with  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill 
was  the  culmination  of  the  bitter  struggle  between 
Colonel  Benton  and  Senator  Atchison  it  may  be 
found  in  a  long  letter  written  by  Mr.  Atchison  almost 
immediately  after  the  passage  of  the  Kansas-Ne 
braska  bill. 319  The  letter  was  addressed  to  the  peo- 


317  During   the    greater   part   of   the    balloting   Atchison    received    56, 
Doniphan   (Whig)   59,  and  Benton  40.  —  Switzler's  Missouri,  277. 

318  The  XlXth  General  Assembly  met  on  the  twenty-ninth  of  Decem 
ber,  1856,  and  on  the  twelfth  of  January,  1857,  elected  James  S.  Green  of 
St.  Louis  for  the  short  term  to  succeed  Atchison ;    and  Trusten  Polk,  the 
Governor-elect,   was   chosen   Senator   for  the   long  term   ending   March  4, 
1863.  —  Switzler's  Missouri,  283. 

319  Dated,  Washington,  June  5,  1854;  printed  in  the  Missouri  Repub 
lican,  June  21,  1854.     Portions  of  this  letter  which  bear  directly  upon  the 
Nebraska  question  and  the  Repeal  will  be  found  in  Appendix  C,  with  the 
omission  of  those  parts  dealing  with  the  Pacific  railroad  issue. 

A  few  days  after  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  had  passed  Congress,  the 
partisans  of  Atchison  residing  in  his  home  county  gave  public  expression 
to  their  "unmingled  pleasure"  at  the  result.  The  following  resolutions 
were  "enthusiastically  adopted  by  the  meeting"  of  the  people  of  Platte 
County  "irrespective  of  party"  held  at  Weston  on  the  ninth  of  June,  1854: 

"Resolved,  That  we  hail  with  unmingled  pleasure  the  passing  of  the 
Nebraska-Kansas  bill  and  exult  in  the  fact  that  an  odious  restriction  has 
been  removed  from  these  Territories,  and  that  each  and  every  citizen  is 
entitled  to  the  same  rights  of  person  and  property  in  said  Territories  that 
they  would  be  entitled  to  in  any  of  the  States  of  the  United  States. 

"Resolved,  That  our  thanks  are  due  to  all  those  who  so  nobly  sup 
ported  the  bill ;  but  our  especial  thanks  are  due  to  our  fellow-citizen, 
Hon.  David  R.  Atchison  for  his  energy  and  untiring  zeal  in  the  establish 
ment  of  the  principle  that  man  is  capable  of  self-government,  and  that 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  227 

pie  of  Missouri  and  was  designed  for  publication  as 
a  campaign  document.  It  reviews  at  great  length 
the  subjects  of  the  establishment  of  a  territorial  gov 
ernment  west  of  Missouri  and  of  the  railroad  to  the 
Pacific.  Concerning  these  topics  Atchison  reviews  at 
length  his  own  and  Colonel  Benton's  views,  utterances 
and  public  acts.  The  letter  not  only  reveals  the  esti 
mate  placed  upon  Benton's  public  acts  by  a  large 
portion  of  the  people  of  Missouri  and  the  majority 
of  the  members  of  Congress,  but  also  something  of 
the  man  Atchison. 

In  this  letter  Senator  Atchison  says  distinctly  that 
the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  was  "a  western  measure 
....  designed  to  add  to  the  power  and  wealth  of 
the  West."  The  issue  which  Colonel  Benton  had 
raised  in  Missouri  over  Nebraska,  namely,  that  "the 
law  of  organization  should  be  so  framed,  and  ought 
to  be  so  framed,  that  all  of  his  slaveholding  constit 
uents  would  be  excluded  from  the  Territories/'  and 
that  Congress  had  the  constitutional  power  to  enact 
a  law  so  framed  and  "ought  to  exercise  it,"  Atchison 
accepted:  "I  accepted  that  issue,"  he  writes,  "and 
so  did  the  Democrats  of  Missouri.  The  battle  has 
been  fought  in  Congress  over  the  Douglas  bill  and 

while  we  recognize  him  as  a  master  spirit  from  our  own  State  in  pro 
curing  the  passage  of  the  Nebraska-Kansas  bill,  we  freely  award  to  Sen 
ator  Geyer,  and  Messrs.  Lamb,  Phelps,  Mills,  Caruthers,  Oliver  and 
Lindley  the  meed  of  praise  for  their  firmness  in  maintaining  the  true  prin 
ciple  of  self-government. 

"Resolved,  That  we  reprobate  the  conduct  of  the  only  one  of  our 
Representatives  [Benton]  who  was  willing  to  sacrifice  not  only  the  interests 
of  Missouri  but  also  all  his  earlier  principles  for  the  sake  of  obtaining  the 
favor  of  those  freesoil  abolition  fanatics  who  have  distracted  Congress 
for  the  past  thirty  years."  —  Missouri  Republican,  June  22,  1854. 


228  THE  REPEAL  OF 

the  Democracy  has  won  a  proud  victory 

The  lines  were  thus  drawn  on  the  national  theater  as 
they  had  previously  been  drawn  by  Benton  in  our 
State My  position  on  this  subject  was  well- 
known  in  Washington,  and  the  issue  that  Benton  made 
upon  it,  I  never  shrank  from."  Referring  to  his 
pledges  at  Weston,  Parkville,  and  other  places  to 
work  for  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise, 
Senator  Atchison  went  on  to  say:  "I  trust,  Fellow- 
citizens,  that  I  have  redeemed  this  pledge  to  the  let- 
er."  And,  finally,  he  emphasized  the  harmony  exist 
ing  between  the  resolution  of  the  Missouri  Legisla 
ture,  in  1845,  approving  the  principle  of  popular 
sovereignty  for  the  settlement  of  the  question  of 
slavery  in  the  Territories;  his  own  preferences  on 
the  subject  as  expressed  publicly  by  him  dur 
ing  the  campaign  of  1853;  and  the  method  pre 
scribed  for  the  settlement  of  the  slavery  question 
by  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill.  "Thus  did  Missouri 
announce  the  same  great  doctrines  for  which  I 
contended  and  on  which  the  Douglas  bill  was  framed 
and  against  which  Benton  joined  issue  with  me,  with 
the  Legislature,  and  with  the  Democracy  of  Mis 
souri,  with  Congress  and  with  the  Administration." 
The  attempted  solution  of  the  problem  respect 
ing  the  origin  of  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compro 
mise  might  be  left  at  this  point  with  the  plain  in 
ference  that  the  Repeal  arose  from  conditions  pecul 
iar  to  the  West,  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  the  ques 
tion  of  secondary  importance  mentioned  in  the  intro 
ductory  pages  remains  undisposed  of.  To  be  sure, 
the  evidence  points  strongly  to  David  R.  Atchison 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  229 

as  the  real  originator  of  the  Repeal  rather  than  to 
Stephen  A.  Douglas.  But  upon  this  question,  the 
evidence  has  been  almost  wholly  circumstantial  or 
inferential.  None  has  been  presented  which  explic 
itly  asserts  that  Senator  Atchison  was  the  real  author 
of  the  Repeal.  Such  a  claim  is  not  made  even  in 
the  letter  which  has  just  been  summarized.  Further 
more,  Mr.  Atchison's  subsequent  claims  to  author 
ship,  have,  as  has  been  stated,  been  seriously  im 
peached  by  historians  and  apparently  denied  by 
Senator  Douglas.  It  remains  to  be  seen  if  there  is 
any  other  direct  evidence  tending  to  support  Atchi- 
son's  claims. 

Only  one  statement,  it  would  seem,  has  been  pub 
lished  with  the  direct  and  sole  purpose  of  assigning 
to  a  single  individual  other  than  Mr.  Douglas  the 
credit  or  discredit  of  having  originated  the  Repeal. 
In  the  year  1880  an  article  appeared  in  the  National 
Quarterly  Review  for  July  with  the  caption,  "What 
Led  to  the  War,  or  the  Secret  History  of  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  Bill."  Later,  the  article  appeared  in 
pamphlet  form.  The  author  was  Colonel  John  A. 
Parker  of  Virginia,  a  person  of  high  social  and  polit 
ical  standing,  who,  during  the  pendency  of  the  bill 
in  Congress,  occupied  a  position  giving  him  peculiar 
opportunities  to  know  the  inside  history  of  the  Kan 
sas-Nebraska  bill.  32°  It  is  the  emphatic  testimony 
of  Colonel  Parker  that  "the  primary  object  .... 
which  induced  the  initiation  of  the  measure  to  repeal 
the  Missouri  Compromise  was  to  secure  the  reelec- 

32(>This   pamphlet    and   the   credibility   of   its    author    are   fully   dis 
cussed  in  Appendix  D. 


230  THE  REPEAL  OF 

tion  of  Mr.  Atchison  to  the  Senate.  The  means  to 
be  employed  was  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compro 
mise  in  order  that  the  people  of  Missouri  might  carry 
their  slaves  to  Kansas  and  there  raise  'hemp.  The 
author  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  was  not  Mr. 

Douglas  but  Mr.  Atchison The  originators  of 

the  plan  fixed  upon  were  Mr.  Atchison  and  three  oth 
er  able  and  distinguished  Southern  Senators,  men  of 
great  influence  in  the  whole  country,  and  especially 
influential  in  the  South." 

Nowhere  is  it  stated  in  Colonel  Parker's  article 
who  the  "three  other  able  and  distinguished  South 
ern  Senators"  were,  who  cooperated  with  Mr.  Atchi 
son  in  the  Repeal.  The  mystery  was  cleared  up, 
however,  by  the  discovery  of  portions  of  a  speech 
and  a  letter  of  Hon.  Francis  P.  Blair,  Jr.,  of  Mis 
souri.  The  speech  was  delivered  in  Missouri  in  1854 
a  short  time  after  the  enactment  of  the  Kansas-Ne 
braska  bill. 321  The  following  passage  not  only  cor 
roborates  Colonel  Parker's  statement  but  actually 
names  the  three  coworkers  with  Atchison. 

"Mr.  Douglas  has  the  credit  of  having  originated  this  scheme 
of  breaking  compacts,  fraught  with  such  fatal  tendencies.  He 
does  not  deserve  this  precedence.  It  will  be  remembered  that 
at  the  last  session  of  Congress,  Mr.  Atchison  broached  the  idea 
of  dissolving  the  Missouri  Compromise,  in  connection  with  the 
then  pending  Nebraska  bill.  Mr.  Calhoun's  Southern  unit  con 
trived  to  get  Mr.  Atchison  made  President  pro  tern,  of  the  Senate. 
From  that  hour  he  became  the  tool  of  the  Nullifiers,  and  when 
Mr.  Calhoun  died,  he  left  his  swaggering  and  sometimes  stagger 
ing  President  pro  tern,  to  the  care  of  Messrs.  Mason,  Hunter  and 

321 1  have  been  unable  to  ascertain  the  exact  time  and  place  of  the 
delivery  of  this  speech.     It  is  given  in  Rev.  Pol.  Action,  105  8. 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  231 

Butler,  who  were  his  factotums  at  the  close  of  his  life,  and  may 
be  considered  the  executors  of  his  estate  of  Nullification. 

"The  first,  (Mr.  Mason  of  Virginia)  you  all  remember,  was 
called  upon  by  Mr.  Calhoun  to  be  his  mouthpiece,  and  read  the 
last  drivellings  of  his  doctrines  of  disunion,  while  he  sat  by,  the 
glare  of  phrensy  in  his  eyes,  unable  to  stand  or  speak,  evincing  'the 
ruling  passion  strong  in  death'  which  was  to  ruin  what  he  was  not 
permitted  to  control.  He  was  the  fanatic  and  martyr  of  ambition. 
Peace  to  his  spirit!  May  it  have  better  repose  than  he  has  left  to 
his  country!  The  next  man  in  the  trio  in  the  confidence  of  Mr. 
Calhoun  was  Mr.  Hunter  of  Virginia.  He  was  withdrawn  from 
his  party,  like  Mr.  Atchison,  by  the  tactics  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  who 
had  him  elected  to  the  Speakership  of  the  House  of  Representa 
tives,  soon  after  entering  it,  by  a  coalition  of  the  Whigs  and 
Nullifiers,  Mr.  Calhoun  putting  him  forward  in  preference  to  his 
devoted  friends,  Dixon  H.  Lewis  and  Mr.  Pickens  of  South 
Carolina,  either  of  whom  was  more  acceptable  to  the  Democracy 
of  the  House;  but  Mr.  Calhoun  gloried  in  putting  down  the  will 
of  the  majority  of  the  Democracy  in  the  person  of  Mr.  Hunter, 
and  it  is  but  justice  to  the  latter  to  say  that  he  followed  his  patron, 
rather  than  his  party,  during  his  life,  and  that  his  spirit  of  hos 
tility  to  the  compacts  which  bind  the  Union  together  survives  in 
him.  322  The  third  man  of  the  junto  to  whom  Mr.  Atchison 
was  committed  is  Mr.  Butler,  of  South  Carolina,  Mr.  Calhoun's 
successor,  who  bears  in  his  look  the  fiery  temper  of  the  furious 
Nullifier,  but  has  certainly,  with  more  heat,  less  of  the  dangerous 
factious  feeling  which  lies  at  the  bottom  of  the  designs  of  his 
colder,  calculating  companions. 

"Mr.  Atchison  has  ever  since,  and  I  believe  before  the  death 
of  Mr.  Calhoun,  been  decidedly  domiciled  with  these  men ;  they 
have  one  household,  323  I  am  told,  and  make  a  little  knot  and 


322  Immediately    upon    reading    this    reference    to    Senator    Hunter,    I 
wrote  to  his  daughter,  Miss  Martha  T.  Hunter,  inquiring  if  there  were 
any  papers  or  correspondence  of  Senator  Hunter  bearing  upon  his  connection 
with  the  Repeal;  but  no  further  evidence  was  obtained. 

323  An  examination  of  the  Congressional  Directory  discloses  the  fact 
that   as   early   as   the  first  session  of  the   soth   Congress,   Senators  Butler, 


232  THE  REPEAL  OF 

lump  of  leaven,  that  works  up  the  whole  batch  that  belongs  to 
the  Southern  institution,  when  occasion  requires.  This  is  the 
brotherhood  which  brought  the  Southern  delegation  to  unite  in 
a  mass,  many  most  unwillingly,  to  give  adhesion  to  the  plot  to 
make  the  united  vote  of  the  South  the  reward  for  that  treachery 
among  the  Northern  aspirants  which  would  sacrifice  the  solemn 
compact  that  had  guaranteed  the  peace  of  the  country  in  fixing 
the  limit  of  that  threatening  subject  of  discord,  which  could  only 
be  safe  itself,  or  exist  with  safety  to  the  country,  by  having  agreed 
boundaries  and  conditions  assigned  in  compromises,  in  concessions 
on  the  part  of  both  sections  of  the  nation  it  provoked  to  strife. 
....  This  dangerous  measure  has  from  first  to  last  been  man 
aged  by  the  nullifiers,  with  all  the  adroitness  taught  in  the  school 
of  their  Machiavel.  The  bill  originating  with  Atchison  and  the 
club  of  Nullifiers  who  chamber  with  him,  has  been  at  every  stage 
in  the  hands  of  the  Southern  Senators,  by  means  of  a  caucus  or 
nightly  convention  held  by  them  with  Northern  Doughfaces 
brought  over  by  the  lust  of  plunder  and  the  temptation  of  getting 
the  vote  of  the  South  as  a  unit  in  the  next  Presidential  con 
vention."  324 


Mason  and  Hunter  occupied  quarters  at  the  same  house  in  Washington. 
They  continued  to  be  domiciled  together  until  after  the  Repeal  in  1854, 
and  while  that  measure  was  before  Congress,  Senator  Atchison  was  dom 
iciled  with  them. 

324  In  a  letter  to  the  Missouri  Democrat,  dated  March  i,  1856,  Mr. 
Blair  again  alludes  to  the  origin  of  the  Repeal:  "It  is  true  beyond  all 
doubt  or  denial,  that  the  very  men  to  whose  influence  and  exertions  the 
passage  of  the  Nebraska  bill  is  due,  have  already  practically  repudiated  it 

and  trampled  it  under  foot Mr.  Atchison  who  really  originated  the 

law,  has  several  times  invaded  the  Territory  in  person,  and  by  brutal 
violence  trampled  upon  the  law  and  robbed  the  actual  settlers  of  their 
rights  under  it.  His  accomplices  in  the  scheme  to  pass  the  bill  have  been 
his  accomplices  in  its  violation,  for  they  have  become  his  apologists  from 

one  end  of  the  country  to  the  other It  is  well-known  that  the 

flagitious  act  by  which  the  Compromise  was  repealed  was  dictated  by  a 
squad  of  Nullifiers  (Atchison,  Mason,  Hunter  &  Co.]  to  the  Doughface 
Presidential  aspirants  from  the  North;  that  when  Atchison,  as  he  himself 
boasted,  gave  'Douglas  twenty-four  hours  to  bring  in  the  bill,'  and  the 
other  Doughfaces  had  been  won  to  the  scheme  by  similar  persuasives 
operating  upon  their  anxiety  for  Presidential  honors,  of  which  being  un- 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  233 

"Gentlemen,  you  make  a  d — d  fuss  about  Doug 
las,  but  Douglas  don't  deserve  the  credit  of  this  Ne 
braska  bill.  I  told  Douglas  to  introduce  it.  I 
originated  it.  I  got  Pierce  committed  to  it,  and  all 
the  glory  belongs  to  me"  32S  No  longer  can  this  be 
dismissed  as  the  empty  boast,  the  loquacious  froth, 
of  a  man  in  liquor.  The  testimony  of  Colonel  Park 
er  and  Mr.  Blair  taken  with  all  the  preceding  evi 
dence  would  seem  to  settle  definitively  the  question  as 
to  the  real  authorship  of  the  Repeal. 

The  preceding  pages  have  been  written  in  vain 
if  they  do  not  justify  the  conclusion  that  the  repeal  of 
the  Missouri  Compromise  in  1854  had  its  real  origin 
in  western  conditions  and  particularly  in  the  peculiar 
political  conditions  existing  in  the  State  of  Missouri; 
and  that  the  real  originator  of  the  Repeal  was  David 
R.  Atchison. 

Apart  from  its  interest  as  an  episode  of  import 
ance  in  the  slavery  controversy,  the  story  of  the  gen 
esis  of  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  has  a 
much  wider  significance.  The  narrative  of  the  way  in 
which  the  struggle  between  two  Missouri  politicians 

worthy,  they  could  only  hope  to  gain  by  truckling  and  subserviency,  the 
adhesion  of  these  men,  thus  gained,  was  based  upon  the  Southern  members 
of  Congress,  to  obtain  their  assent  to  the  overthrow  of  the  Compromise. 
It  is  believed  that  a  majority  of  the  Southern  men  were  opposed  to  the 
measure,  and  were  coerced  into  it  by  the  fear  that  they  would  not  be  sus 
tained  if  they  refused  an  advantage  offered  to  them  by  the  North.  Thus 
the  treachery  of  Northern  men  to  their  own  constituents  was  made  to  work 
upon  the  honorable  scruples  of  the  Southern  men,  in  order  to  accomplish 
an  act  which  no  respectable  portion  of  any  section  desired  should  be  done." 
Rev.  Pol.  Action,  76. 

325  Quoted  from  the  account  of  Atchison's  speech  at  Atchison,  Kansas 
Territory,  Sept.  20,  1854,  as  given  in  the  New  York  Tribune,  June  4, 
1855;  see  Appendix  E. 


234  THE  REPEAL  OF 

for  the  senatorial  succession  was  transferred  to  the 
Congressional  arena  and  there  became  transformed 
from  .a  local  question  into  one  of  the  gravest  national 
importance,  is  a  signal  instance  of  what  has  happened 
in  the  history  of  American  politics  more  often  per 
haps  than  is  generally  realized.  It  establishes  the 
essential  importance  of  a  careful  study  of  State  poli 
tics  in  order  to  arrive  at  a  satisfactory  solution  of  not 
a  few  problems  in  national  politics.  It  is  a  concrete 
illustration  of  the  "significance  of  the  frontier"  in 
American  political  history. 


Appendix 


APPENDIX  A 

A  New  Explanation  of  Senator  Douglas's  Motives 

Messrs.  J.  Amos  Barrett  and  A.  E.  Sheldon  of 
the  Nebraska  Historical  Society  are  the  authors  of 
perhaps  the  most  recent  and  novel  explanation  of 
Senator  Douglas's  purposes  and  motives  in  champion 
ing  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  On 
account  of  its  plausibility,  this  explanation  deserves 
some  consideration  here. 326 

It  is  now  claimed  that  the  defeat  of  the  bill  for 
the  organization  of  Nebraska  Territory  in  March, 
1853,  in  the  closing  days  of  the  3ad  Congress, 
was  due  to  the  rivalry  between  Chicago  and  St. 
Louis,  on  the  one  hand,  and  New  Orleans  and  Texas, 
on  the  other,  over  the  route  for  the  proposed  railroad 
to  the  Pacific  coast.  Referring  to  the  Kansas-Ne 
braska  bill  in  the  33d  Congress,  these  writers  inquire, 
"What  was  Douglas's  motive  in  proposing  ....  to  make 
Nebraska  a  cock-pit  where  slavery  and  freedom  should  fight  it  out  ? 
....  For  ten  years  [?]  he  had  been  trying  to  open  up  this 
country  lying  straight  in  the  path  of  commerce  and  emigration 
from  his  own  State;  for  five  years  he  had  seen  Pacific  railroad 
projects  blocked  by  commercial  rivals,  south  and  east.  He  had 
seen  those  interests  strong  enough  to  kill  his  bill  the  spring  before 
even  when  strongly  supported  by  the  slave  State  of  Missouri.  He 
knew  that  a  hasty  treaty  with  Mexico  was  being  pushed  to  pre 
pare  the  way  for  a  Pacific  railroad  that  would  build  up  the  rivals 

326  This  appeared  in  the  Omaha  (Nebr.)  Bee,  June  5,  1904. 


238  APPENDIX  A 

of  both  Chicago  and  St.  Louis.  No  one  knew  better  than  he  that 
commerce  and  migration  to  the  Pacific  would  follow  the  route  of 
the  first  railroad.  No  one  was  closer  than  he  to  the  railroad  and 
commercial  interests  of  Illinois.  He  had  secured  the  first  United 
States  railroad  land  grant  for  the  Illinois  Central.  The  Rock 
Island,  first  of  all  Illinois  roads,  had  just  reached  the  Mississippi. 
Railroads  would  soon  be  built  across  Iowa.  The  natural  route  to 
the  Pacific  was  across  Nebraska  prairies.  If  opened  to  white  set 
tlement  it  was  certain  the  rush  of  population  would  carry  the 
road  on  its  shoulders  and  with  it  the  trade  not  only  of  the  west, 
but  of  the  world  to  Chicago.  The  price  to  pay  was  to  satisfy 
the  slave  sentimentalists  of  the  south,  to  offer  them,  prima  facie, 
an  equal  opportunity  with  the  north  in  settling  the  new  territory, 
knowing  as  Douglas  knew  that  the  superior  energy  and  push  of 
the  free  state  migration  would  win  in  Nebraska  as  it  already 
had  in  Oregon  and  California.  Such  an  offer  would  cut  the 
ground  from  beneath  the  feet  of  the  New  Orleans-Texas-Missis 
sippi  opponents  of  the  bill.  They  could  no  longer  unite  the  south 

\     against  the  measure  on  the  score  of  pretended  sympathy  for  the 
Indian."  327 

In  support  of  this  claim  the  refusal  of  the  Sen 
ate  on  March  3,  1853,  to  take  up  the  consideration  of 
the  bill  by  a  vote  of  23  to  17,  is  cited. 

"It  is  this  vote  analysed  which  proves  the  real  nature  of 
the  opposition  to  the  Nebraska  bill  —  the  combination  of  commer 
cial  rivals  with  slave  jealousy  which  is  determined  to  prevent  a 
Pacific  railroad  up  the  Platte  valley.  Eighteen  out  of  the  twenty- 
three  votes  to  lay  on  the  table  make  the  solid  south  —  both  whig 
and  democrat  —  against  Douglas's  bill ;  the  other  five  are  from  the 
commercial  States  of  the  northeast.  Every  one  of  the  seventeen 
votes  for  the  bill  is  from  the  north  and  northwest  except  the  two 

votes  from  Missouri This  is  a  fight  between  Chicago 

and  St.  Louis  on  the  one  hand,  looking  forward  to  the  opening  of 
the  Platte  valley  Pacific  railroad ;  New  Orleans  and  Texas,  on  the 
other,  trying  to  block  the  northern  route  until  they  can  push  one 


327  No   indication   is   given   of  the   evidence   or   the   authorities   upon 
which  this  interpretation  is  based. 


SENATOR  DOUGLAS'S  MOTIVES  239 

through  on  southern  parallels;  and  New  York  City  helping  the 
southerners  in  order  to  maintain  her  own  hold  on  the  California 
trade  by  sea  and  the  isthmus  of  Panama Before  another  Ne 
braska  bill  could  be  debated  in  Congress  the  southern  interest  had 
rushed  the  Gadsden  treaty  from  Mexico  to  Washington,  paying 
$IO,OOO,OOO  for  a  strip  of  desert  in  Arizona  and  New  Mexico, 
whose  only  use  was  to  open  a  better  route  for  a  southern  Pacific 
railroad." 

In  the  foregoing  analysis  of  the  vote  in  the  Sen 
ate,  no  account  is  taken  of  the  fact  that  twenty-two 
Senators  did  not  vote  —  a  number  sufficient  to  se 
riously  weaken  the  conclusion  just  quoted.  Further 
more,  Messrs.  Barrett  and  Sheldon  fail  to  take  into 
account  the  vote  in  the  House  which  fails  to  support 
their  main  contention.  The  only  ostensible  objec 
tions  to  the  bill  were  based  upon  considerations  grow 
ing  out  of  treaty  rights  of  Indians  in  the  proposed 
Territory. 

This  bill  passed  the  House  by  a  vote  of  ninety- 
eight  to  forty-three.     An  analysis  of  this  vote  dis 
closes   the   fact   that   eighty-eight  members,    almost 
forty  per  cent,  were  absent  or  did  not  vote :  of  these, 
forty-two  were  from  slave,  and  forty-six  from  free; 
States.     Of  the  ninety-eight  votes  cast  in  favor  of  the 
bill,  eighty  came  from  free  States,  and  eighteen,  or 
almost    one-fifth,     came     from     slave     States.     Of 
those     who     voted     against     the     bill,     thirty,     or    • 
two-thirds,    came    from    slave,    and    thirteen    from 
free,    States.     This    analysis    affords    no    evidence 
that    the    vote     of     the     House    was     determined  ; 
by    considerations    based    upon    any    probable    ef-'' 
feet  which  the  organization  of  Nebraska  Territory 
might  have  in  determining  the  location  of  the  route 


240  APPENDIX  A 

of  the  proposed  Pacific  railroad.  Indeed,  the  analy 
sis  furnishes  evidence  against  this  conclusion: 
Louisiana,  one  of  the  two  States  most  directly  in 
terested  in  the  extreme  southerly  route,  contributed 
two  of  the  votes  for  the  bill,  and  none  against  it] 
Texas,  the  other  State  most  interested  in  this  route, 
cast  but  one  vote  against  the  bill;  two  representatives 
from  Louisiana,  and  one  from  Texas,  did  not 
vote.  Only  _  half  of  the  New  York  delegation 
voted  at  all,  and  instead  of  going  solidly  against  the 
bill,  along  with  the  friends  of  the  southerly  route, 
two-thirds  of  them  voted  for  the  bill.  The  following 
table  shows  the  distribution  of  votes  in  the  House : 328 

YEAS       NAYS     NOT  VOTING 

Alabama     .                   .                   .14  2 

Arkansas     ...  I 

California   .                   ...  2 

Connecticut                                                 3  I 

Delaware    ...  I 

Florida        ...  I 
Georgia        ...                           26 

Illinois         ...         6  I 

Indiana        .                   .                   .61  3 
Iowa            .                   .                   .11 

Kentucky    ...         3  7 

Louisiana    ...         2  2 

Maine         .                   .                   .41  2 

Maryland    .                   .                  ,13  2 

Massachusetts                                           6  2 

Michigan    ...         2  i 
Mississippi  ...                           13 

Missouri      ...         4  I 

New  Hampshire                                       2  2 

New  Jersey                   .                   .31  I 

328  House  Journal,  2d  Sess.,  $2d  Cong.,  272-273. 


SENATOR  DOUGLAS'S  MOTIVES  241 

New  York  .  .  ,       1 1  6  17 

North  Carolina  .  .16  2 

Ohio  .  .  .17  4 

Pennsylvania  .  .16  2  7 

Rhode  Island  .  .  I 

South  Carolina  .  52 

Tennessee    .  .  .3  I  7 

Texas  ...  II 

Vermont     ...  I  2 

Virginia      .  .  -37  4 

Wisconsin   .  .  .3 

Totals  .  98  43  88 

There  is  but  one  remark  in  the  debate  in  the 
House  over  the  Nebraska  bill  in  1853  which  tends  to 
sustain  the  theory  of  Messrs.  Barrett  and  Sheldon. 
Mr.  Hall  of  Missouri  said: 

"I  trust,  at  any  rate,  that  the  gentleman's  [Howard  of  Texas] 
influence  may  be  as  potential  in  Texas  in  urging  a  law  to  secure 
to  the  Indians  their  rights,  as  I  fear  it  has  been  in  this  House  to 
array  an  interest  against  the  organization  of  Nebraska  Territory, 
and  the  protection  of  our  people  who  go  to  Oregon  and  California 
every  year. 

"But  I  wish  to  suggest  to  the  gentleman  from  Texas  whether 
he  may  not  have  been  influenced  to  some  degree,  unconsciously,  to 
oppose  this  bill  from  considerations  of  this  kind  ?  If  the  gentleman 
can  convince  this  House  and  the  country  that  the  Territory  of 
Nebraska  shall  not  be  organized,  either  at  this  session  or  any  future 
session  of  Congress;  if  the  people  of  Texas  can  prevail  upon  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  to  drive  the  Indians  of  Texas, 
the  Comanches,  and  other  wild  tribes,  into  the  Territory  of  Nebras 
ka,  it  may  have  the  effect  of  rendering  your  overland  routes  from 
Missouri  and  Iowa  to  Oregon  and  California  so  dangerous  that 
the  tide  of  emigration  will  have  to  pass  through  Texas  —  an  object 
which  Texas  has  most  zealously  sought  to  accomplish  for  many 
years  past. 

"In  addition  to  that,  if  in  the  course  of  time  a  great  railroad 


242  APPENDIX  A 

should  be  found  necessary  from  this  part  of  the  continent  to  the 
shores  of  the  Pacific,  and  the  doctrine  prevail  that  all  the  territory 
west  of  Missouri  is  to  be  a  wilderness  from  this  day  henceforth 
and  forever,  Texas  being  settled,  the  people  of  this  country  will 
have  no  alternative  but  to  make  the  Pacific  road  terminate  at 
Galveston  or  some  other  point  in  Texas "329 

All  in  all,  the  foundation  of  this  new  explanation 
of  Mr.  Douglas's  purposes,  based,  as  it  is,  upon  the 
analysis  of  the  vote  in  the  Senate,  is  too  weak  to  sus 
tain  the  superstructure  erected  upon  it.  Moreover, 
as  relating  more  particularly  to  Senator  Douglas's 
motives,  it  is  difficult  to  accept  this  as  the  true  ex 
planation.  The  real  or  fancied  interests  of  constit 
uents  have  been,  and  probably  always  will  be,  one  of 
the  most  potent  factors  in  determining  the  public  acts 
of  American  politicians.  If  Mr.  Douglas  himself 
had  felt  that  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise 
and  the  organization  of  Nebraska  Territory  and  the 
commercial  interests  of  the  people  of  Illinois  were 
vitally  related,  he  would  have  championed  the 
Repeal  regardless  of  any  effect  it  might  have 
upon  his  prospects  as  a  national  leader.  That  being 
true,  it  is  highly  probable  that  he  would  have  publicly 
avowed  that  ground  when  hard  pressed,  as  he  after 
wards  was,  to  defend  his  course  in  connection  with  the 
Repeal.  Nothing,  however,  has  been  discovered  in 
Mr.  Douglas's  speeches  before  the  people  of  Illinois 
in  defense  of  his  course  which  indicates  that  the  pos 
sible  route  of  the  Pacific  railroad  was  a  determining 
factor. 


329  Cong.  Globe,  xxvi,  558. 


APPENDIX  B 

William  C  Price 

The  name  of  Judge  William  C.  Price  of  Mis 
souri  has  not,  so  far  as  the  author  has  discovered,  been 
associated  by  previous  writers  with  the  repeal  of  the 
Missouri  Compromise.  That  he  played  a  part  of 
considerable  importance  in  creating  a  strong  senti 
ment  in  western  Missouri  favorable  to  an  early  repeal 
of  the  Compromise  seems  highly  probable  in  view  of 
the  facts  furnished  me  by  Mr.  William  E.  Connelley. 
This  actor  did  not  appear  upon  so  conspicuous  a  stage 
nor  did  he  have  the  same  personal  motives  for  desir 
ing  the  Repeal  that  inspired  Senator  Atchison. 
Nevertheless  he  was  mighty  in  the  councils  of  his 
party  and  had  much  to  do  with  preparing  the  way  for 
the  Repeal  in  connection  with  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill. 

There  is  a  very  brief  biographical  sketch  of 
Judge  Price  in  Mr.  Connelley's  The  Provisional 
Government  of  Nebraska.  From  this  sketch  and 
from  a  typewritten  statement  specially  prepared  by 
Mr.  Connelley  for  the  author  the  facts  here  presented 
are  drawn. 

Born  in  Tazewell  County,  Virginia,  about  1812, 
William  Cecil  Price  was  a  direct  descendant  of  Lord 
Baltimore  who  settled  Maryland,  and  a  cousin  of  the 
Confederate  General,  Sterling  Price,  who  was 


244  APPENDIX  B 

Governor  of  Missouri  from  1853  to  1857.  In  1828 
the  parents  of  Price  removed  to  Green  County  in  the 
southwestern  part  of  Missouri,  and  were  among  the 
first  settlers  in  that  section. 

Price  proved  to  be  an  able  lawyer.  He  rapidly 
became  prominent  in  the  politics  of  Missouri  and 
continued  to  occupy  a  conspicuous  place  in  the  coun 
sels  of  the  Democratic  party  until  the  Civil  War.  In 
the  decade  just  preceding  the  war  Judge  Price  was 
a  recognized  leader  of  the  extreme  and  radical  ele 
ment,  the  "fire-eaters,"  of  the  Southern  Democracy, 
especially  in  the  State  of  Missouri.  Among  the  posi 
tions  of  honor  and  trust  to  which  he  was  elected  were 
Judge  of  Probate,  Circuit  Judge,  District  Attorney, 
Representative  in  the  State  Legislature,  and  State 
Senator.  He  also  filled  the  office  of  Treasurer  of  the 
United  States  under  President  Buchanan. 

Physically,  Judge  Price  was  a  man  fully  six  feet 
in  height,  spare,  and  of  remarkably  firm  step  and 
erect  carriage  until  he  had  passed  the  age  of  sixty. 
He  'had  black  hair,  only  slightly  streaked  with  gray 
at  the  age  of  seventy-five;  clear  eyes,  "dark  as  steel, 
blue,  as  penetrating  as  daggers.  His  face  was  classic 
in  outline  and  feature.  He  had  the  small  foot  and 
hand  of  the  Southern  gentleman.  His  presence 
was  commanding,  his  manner  imperious."  33° 

Intellectually,  Price  was  a  man  of  far  more  than 
average  ability  along  some  lines :  in  others  his  vision 
of  events  was  narrow.  "He  was  an  ideal  leader  —  a 
sanguine  enthusiast.  He  had  great  command  of  lan- 

330  A  wood-cut  engraving  of  Judge  Price  is  to  be  found  in  Connelley's 
Prov.  Gov.,  33. 


WILLIAM  C.  PRICE  245 

guage,  and  was  a  plausible  speaker,  but  not  logical. 
His  force  consisted  in  the  earnestness  of  his  advocacy 
and  the  tenacity  with  which  he  held  to  a  cause  after 
he  deemed  it  to  embody  his  duty." 

Judge  Price  was  a  man  of  great  courage,  moral 
and  physical. 331  He  was  a  man  too  of  an  intensely 
religious  nature,  and  exceedingly  familiar  with  the 
Scriptures.  He  was  a  Methodist,  and  after  the  divi 
sion  of  the  Church,  he  adhered  to  the  "Church 
South."  He  was  a  thorough  believer  in  the  right 
eousness  of  slavery,  and  even  after  the  war,  contended 
that  slavery  was  a  blessing  to  the  negro. 

His  devotion  to  the  Southern  cause  bordered 
upon  fanaticism.  He  believed  with  all  his  soul  that 
the  cause  was  right,  and  for  a  man  of  his  temperament 
no  sacrifice  was  too  great  to  make  in  its  interest.  He 
was  an  ardent  advocate  of  Secession,  and  when  the 
time  came,  he  joined  the  Confederate  army.  He  was 
taken  prisoner  at  Wilson's  Creek,  and  confined  in  the 
military  prison  at  Alton,  111. 332 

Judge  Price  has  been  dead  for  some  years,  dying 
in  Chicago  in  extreme  poverty.  He  has  one  son 
living,  a  lawyer,  residing  in  Forsyth,  Taney  County, 
Missouri. 333 

331  Mr.  Connelley  says:     "He  was  a  dead  shot  with  the  old  fashioned 
rifle.     He  was   sometimes   challenged   to   fight   duels    and    always   selected 
that  weapon.     His  known  ability  to  shoot  well  and  the  decadence  of  that 
arm  and  inability  of  others  to  use  it,  caused  an  accommodation  of  all  the 
affairs.     Upon  receipt  of  a  challenge  he  would  say,  'rifles  at  sixty  yards, 
and  I  am  ready  any  minute.' " 

332  "He  had  a  keen  sense  of  humor.     A  friend  once  introduced  him  to 
a  stranger,  and  remarked,  'Judge  Price  was  in  the  United  States  Treasury 
under  President  Buchanan.'     'Yes/  said  the  Judge,  'and  in  the  penitentiary 
under  President  Lincoln.' "  —  Connelley's  Prov.  Gov.f  28  n. 

333  Benjamin  F.  Price,  Mr.  Connelley  says,  has  no  papers  belonging 


246  APPENDIX  B 

The  information  which  Mr.  Connelley  has  been 
so  kind  as  to  furnish  me  was  derived  from  a  personal 
acquaintance  with  Judge  Price  and  from  personal  in 
terviews.  Mr.  Connelley  resided  in  Springfield, 
Missouri,  the  home  of  Judge  Price,  from  1888  to 
1892,  and  was  engaged  in  the  business  of  loaning 
money  for  eastern  people.  Judge  Price  and  Mr. 
Connelley  became  very  intimate  friends.  Having 
been  one  of  the  first  settlers  in  that  part  of  Missouri, 
Judge  Price  was  able  to  furnish  Mr.  Connelley  with 
much  valuable  information  "concerning  land  titles, 
kinship,  heirs,  what  became  of  certain  people,  etc., 
etc.,"  for  which  the  Judge  always  received  a  fee.  He 
supposed  himself  to  be  still  in  the  practice  of  his  pro 
fession,  but  only  a  few  old  people  employed  him. 
Much  of  his  time  was  spent  in  the  large  and  commo 
dious  office  of  Mr.  Connelley. 334 

Judge  Price  had  then  outlived  his  generation, 
but  continued  to  "live  in  the  days  of  his  power  and 
talked  of  little  else."  Mr.  Connelley  apparently  was 
the  only  man  in  that  period  of  Judge  Price's  life  who 
appreciated  the  information  about  Missouri  politics 
which  Judge  Price  could  give,  and  Mr.  Connelley 
entreated  him  to  endeavor  to  reduce  his  statements 
to  writing,  but  this  seems  to  have  been  prevented  by 
his  physical  infirmities. 33S 

to  his  father  which  would  throw  more  light  upon  his  connection  with  the 
Repeal. 

334  Mr.  Connelley's  first  wife  was  a  relative  of  Judge  Price. 

335  "And  his  mind   was  just  beginning  to  fail  him,"   Mr.   Connelley 
adds.     "He  was  fanatical  on  religious  subjects;   this  was  the  evidence  I 
believed  of  the  beginning  of  the  weakening  of  his  mental   faculties.     In 
1894  I  saw  him  for  the  last  time,  and  he  was  feeble  in  mind  and  body." 


WILLIAM  C.  PRICE  247 

Mr.  Connelley  also  says  that 

"Mordecai  Oliver,  once  member  of  Congress  from  Mis 
souri,  and  member  of  the  Committee  to  investigate  the  troubles 
in  Kansas,  336  was  also  a  resident  of  Springfield  at  the  time  I 
lived  there.  Judge  Price  despised  him,  but  I  sometimes  induced 
them  to  discuss  old  times  in  my  presence,  as  I  knew  them  both  well 
and  esteemed  them  both.  Oliver  was  then  Judge  of  the  Criminal 
Court.  He  had  been  a  Whig,  but  was  for  slavery.  On  the  sub 
ject  of  the  Missouri  Repeal  they  agreed  as  to  facts,  though  Oliver 
at  heart  opposed  the  idea."  337 

The  part  which  Judge  Price  played  in  the  re 
peal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  will  now  be  given 
in  Mr.  Connelley's  own  words. 

"Judge  Price  always  maintained  that  the  idea  of  the  Repeal 
originated  with  him.  He  claimed  that  he  pressed  this  idea  on  the 
South,  saying  that  Missouri  could  not  remain  slave  with  Iowa 
free  on  the  north,  Illinois  free  on  the  east,  and  a  free  State  on 
the  west.  In  short,  Missouri  had  to  accomplish  that  Repeal  or 
become  a  free  State.  That  was  what  Judge  Price  preached  for 
twenty  years  before  the  war.  And  the  South  allowed  Missouri  to 
have  her  way 

"The  Repeal  was  discussed  in  a  gathering  of  extreme  Demo 
crats  in  New  Orleans  as  early  as  1850.  Judge  Price  attended 
this  gathering,  as  he  has  often  told  me.  I  have  the  names  of  others 
in  attendance,  but  my  papers  are  so  much  in  disorder  that  I  have 
been  unable  to  find  the  memorandum.  I  remember  that  Jefferson 
Davis  was  at  that  meeting;  Judge  Price  often  related  to  me  the 
feeling  speech  he  made  there.  I  remember  that  J.  P.  Benjamin 
and  Toombs  were  there.  And  a  Mr.  Smith,  338  I  think  a  minister 
of  the  Gospel,  either  then  or  afterwards  a  Member  of  Congress 

336  Mr.   Oliver  presented   the    Minority  Report.  —  House  Reports,    ist 
Sess.,  34th  Congress,  ii,  no.  200,  68  ff   (1856). 

337  Oliver  was   a   member  of  the  House  when  the   Kansas-Nebraska 
bill  was  passed,  and  spoke  and  voted  for  the  bill.  —  Cong.  Globe,  xxviii, 
Pt.  ii,  1209 ;   ibid.,  xxxi,  726. 

338  Probably  Rev.  William  Smith,  a  Democratic  Representative  in  the 
3 3d  Congress,  and  a  supporter  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill. 


248  APPENDIX  B 

from  Virginia,  was  there Without  my  papers  I  would 

not  say  that  this  meeting  was  in  1850,  but  I  am  sure  it  was  as 

early  as  that 

"The  idea,  the  intention,  of  the  Repeal  had  been  discussed 
secretly  in  every  gathering  of  pro-slavery  men  in  Missouri  for  ten 
years.  Benton  repudiated  the  idea  in  Springfield,  Mo.,  in  1844, 
so  Judge  Price  informed  me.  And  from  that  day  the  radical 
slave  faction  of  the  Missouri  Democracy  fought  him  to  the  death. 
Judge  Price  and  other  radical  Southern  leaders  saw  at  that  time 
that  a  conflict  was  inevitable ;  they  were  secessionists  per  se.  Judge 
Price  was  the  man  selected  to  lead  the  fight  in  Missouri  for  the 
use  of  a  part  of  the  Indian  country  which  was  north  of  the  old 
Compromise  line  for  Slavery.  In  this  capacity  he  made  known 
to  Benton  the  conclusion  of  the  radical  slave  faction.  Price  and 
Benton  had  been  warm  friends  to  this  time.  They  never  spoke 
afterwards.  Price  registered  a  vow  to  drive  Benton  from  public 

life  and  accomplished  it In  presence  of  a  large  company 

gathered  in  a  store  on  St.  Louis  street,  in  Springfield,  Mo.,  he 
vowed  he  would  fight  Benton  to  the  death.  To  make  it  more 
open  and  public  he  wrote  his  determination  on  the  walls  of  the 
store,  where  it  remained  until  the  building  was  torn  down  after 
the  Civil  War.  So  said  Judge  Price  to  me  many  times. 

"Judge  Price  was  the  head  of  the  pro-slavery  extremists  of 
the  South.  He  was  in  close  and  constant  communication  with 
Jefferson  Davis,  Robert  Toombs,  John  C.  Calhoun,  John  C. 
Breckenridge,  Judah  P.  Benjamin,  and  other  Southern  leaders, 
for  many  years  prior  to  the  Civil  War.  These  men  looked  to  him 
to  inaugurate  and  carry  out  the  measures  in  Missouri  supposed  to 
be  for  the  benefit  of  the  aggressive  policy  of  the  extremists  of  the 
slave  power.  No  better  selection  was  ever  made.  He  believed 
in  the  righteousness  of  slavery.  And  when  enlisted  in  a  cause  he 
knew  no  such  word  as  fail.  He  would  not  sacrifice  the  thousandth 
part  of  the  most  insignificant  principle  for  any  advantage  which 
might  be  offered  him.  Compromise  was  repugnant  to  him.  He 
would  always  drive  straight  ahead  to  the  end  in  the  way  marked 
out,  let  the  consequences  be  what  they  might. 

"The  aggressive  leaders  of  the  slave  power  became  dissatisfied 


WILLIAM  C.  PRICE  249 

with  the  course  of  Senator  Benton  of  Missouri.  They  marked  him 
for  defeat.  While  Benton  had  spent  the  greater  part  of  his  active 
life  in  Washington  and  away  from  the  people  of  Missouri,  he 
was  still,  in  1844,  supreme  in  Missouri.  While  it  is  true  that  a 
new  generation  had  sprung  up  in  Missouri  who  knew  not  Ben- 
ton,  339  it  is  also  true  that  the  older  generation  stood  by  Benton, 
and  by  their  aid  he  dictated  the  political  policy  of  the  State.  It 
was  supposed  to  be  political  death  for  any  man  to  even  whisper 
a  breath  against  'Old  Bullion,'  the  idol  of  Missouri 

"Judge  Price  wras  never  a  rash  man.  He  had  a  cool  head  and 
a  pulse  even  and  regular  under  every  trial.  He  knew  what  his 
declaration  meant.  Benton  was  a  born  leader,  and  in  manner 
much  like  Judge  Price.  He  was  intolerant,  often  dictatorial  and 
unjust.  The  declaration  of  hostilities  by  Price  was  accepted  by 
Benton  and  the  political  battle  royal  of  Missouri  politics  began, 
and  the  first  in  the  fight  for  the  Repeal,  though  the  issue  was 
veiled.  Neither  side  urged  the  real  issue  between  them.  Price 
hoped  that  with  the  defeat  of  Benton  events  would  naturally  shape 
themselves  as  the  Southern  leaders  desired.  Benton  hoped  that 
with  his  victory  extreme  agitation  by  the  Southern  leaders  would 
disappear.  So  this  fight  was  not  made  on  the  issues  really  the 
cause  of  it,  Judge  Price  often  said. 

"Price  was  away  from  home  for  months  at  a  time  for  the  six 
years  following  1844.  There  were  no  railroads  in  Missouri  and 
travel  was  by  horseback.  He  visited  every  part  of  the  State  time 
and  again.  He  selected  Judge  Geyer  of  St.  Louis  as  the  man  to 
defeat  Benton.340  When  Benton  returned  to  Missouri  in  1850 
he  found  himself  actually  beaten  and  turned  down.  The  first 
battle  of  the  aggressive  and  rabid  extremists  of  the  slave  power 
was  thus  fought  out  in  Missouri  and  was  a  victory  for  them. 

"I  asked  Judge  Price  concerning  the  opening  of  Kansas  to 
settlement.  He  said: 


339  Compare  with  Rogers's  Benton,  275  ff. 

340  Judge  Geyer  was  a  Whig.    He  voted  for  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill. 
Mr.    Connelley    states    that    Judge    Price    claimed    also    to    have    selected 
Claiborne  F.  Jackson  for  the  Governorship  in  1860.     It  will  be  recollected 
that  Jackson,  when   Governor,   used  every  means   in  his   power  to   carry 
Missouri  out  of  the  Union. 


2^0  APPENDIX   B 

"  'We  were  opposed  to  the  opening  of  any  part  of  the  terri 
tory  of  Old  Missouri  Territory  to  settlement,  and  for  many  reasons. 
It  had  been  set  aside  as  the  Indian  Country.  The  Government  had 
removed  the  Eastern  Indian  tribes  to  that  country  and  covenanted 
with  them  that  they  should  never  be  molested  in  their  new  home. 
And  this  was  done  with  a  purpose,  for  if  slavery  could  not  go  there 
we  wanted  no  one  there  except  the  Indians.  And  there  was  no 
necessity  for  such  settlement;  millions  of  acres  of  better  land  were 
open  to  settlement  in  Missouri,  Arkansas,  Louisiana,  Mississippi, 
Alabama,  and  Texas. 

"  'To  establish  Territories  in  that  country  would,  we  knew, 
bring  up  the  subject  of  slavery,  and  its  admission  or  exclusion. 
We  were  excluded  by  the  Compromise,  but  Southern  men  hoped 
in  some  way  to  bring  about  the  repeal  of  that  measure  in  some 
peaceful  manner.  Their  most  cherished  hope  for  many  years  was 
to  look  upon  the  old  manner  of  retaining  the  influence  of  Slave- 
State  and  Free-State  at  a  balance  in  the  Union  by  the  admission 
of  one  slave  State  and  one  free  State  when  the  time  for  the  admis 
sion  of  any  part  of  that  domain  was  demanded  by  the  economic 
conditions  of  the  country.  In  the  meantime  we  hoped  to  make 
four  States  of  Texas,  and  to  have  slavery  established  in  the  country 
obtained  from  Spain  and  Mexico. 

'  'Many  things  transpired  which  wre  could  not  foresee.  The 
discovery  of  gold  in  California  was  one  of  these.  Then,  as  I 
said,  it  was  necessary  to  defeat  Benton  in  Missouri.  The  effects 
of  this  defeat  were  bad.  He  was  ambitious,  though  old.  He 
should,  according  to  our  calculations,  have  retired  when  he  was 
defeated.  But  he  immediately  espoused  the  cause  of  Nebraska 
Territory.  There  were  two  causes  for  this.  He  knew  we  wrere 
opposed  to  it  and  he  knew  that  the  slave  power  was  not  prepared 
to  enter  upon  a  struggle  for  its  very  existence.  He  wished  to 
precipitate  things.  And,  he  saw  he  could  never  regain  his  seat 
in  the  Senate  from  Missouri.  He  had  become  interested  in  Fre 
mont's  explorations  of  the  West. 

"  'Benton  was  a  man  of  ability  and  wonderful  foresight.  He 
predicted  that  a  great  city  wTould  one  day  be  built  at  the  mouth 
of  the  Kansas  River.  He  intended  to  move  there  and  live  in  the 


WILLIAM  C.  PRICE  251 

new  Territory  and  eventually  be  one  of  its  first  United  States 
Senators  when  it  was  admitted  as  a  State,  as  he  had  been  one  of 
the  first  of  Missouri's  Senators.  At  my  suggestion  Atchison  ac 
cused  him  of  this  intention,  and  denounced  him  for  it  in  a  speech, 
delivered  I  think  in  Liberty. 

"  'One  of  the  things  which  proved  bad  for  us  was  the  removal 
of  the  Wyandotts  to  the  mouth  of  the  Kansas  River.  It  was  not 
the  intention  that  they  should  settle  there.  They  were  to  have 
a  large  tract  of  land  in  Southern  Kansas  (what  is  now  Southern 
Kansas).  No  one  supposed  they  would  buy  land  of  another  tribe; 
such  a  thing  had  not  been  thought  of.  When  they  bought  land 
of  the  Delawares  and  obtained  control  of  the  mouth  of  the  Kansas 
River  we  were  fearful  that  it  was  not  for  our  best  interest;  there 
were  too  many  white  men  in  the  tribe.  Then  the  tribe  came 
recently  from  Ohio  where  there  was  much  opposition  to  slavery, 
and  where  existed  the  most  successful  underground  railroad  for 
conveying  slaves  to  Canada.  Then  again,  this  tribe  had  but  just 
settled  at  the  mouth  of  the  Kansas  River  when  the  division  of  the 
Methodist  Church  into  Northern  and  Southern  parts  caused  almost 
a  war  between  the  factions  of  the  tribe.  The  portion  of  the  tribe 
which  wished  to  remain  with  the  Old  Church  cried  out  against 
slavery,  and  the  question  was  kept  in  constant  agitation  where  we 
most  desired  nothing  said.  When  it  was  supposed  that  Nebraska 
Territory  would  be  organized  we  were  often  solicited  by  the  fac 
tion  in  favor  of  the  Church,  South,  to  take  a  hand,  but  we  were 
averse  to  doing  that  and  hoped  the  question  would  quiet  down. 
However,  it  did  not  do  so.  Benton,  Blair,  Brown,  even  Phelps,  341 
encouraged  its  agitation.  The  moving  spirits  in  the  cause  of  the 
Church,  North,  and  in  condemning  slavery,  were  J.  M.  Armstrong 
and  Abelard  Guthrie.  342  Guthrie  remained  in  Washington  much 
of  the  time,  as  we  believed  then,  at  Benton's  expense.  At  any 
rate,  it  was  known  that  he  and  Benton  were  much  together;  we 
had  no  doubt  they  acted  in  concert.'  "  343 


341  F.  P.  Blair,  Jr.,  B.  Gratz  Brown,  J.   S.  Phelps.     The  last  was  a 
Democratic  Representative  from  Missouri  in  the  33d  Congress. 

342  por  a  sketch  of  Guthrie,  see  Connelley's  Prov.  Go<v.,  101. 

343  Mr.  Connelley  concludes  his  statement  and  report  of  the  conversa- 


252  APPENDIX  B 


tion  related  above,  with  the  statement  that  "the  foregoing  was  hurriedly 
written  by  me  after  the  conversation  with  Judge  Price,  and  I  may  have 
misunderstood  some  things  or  may  have  put  some  things  in  a  light  he  did 
not  intend.  I  was  very  busy  in  those  days  and  intended  to  go  over  all 
these  matters  in  a  more  leisurely  way,  but  the  time  never  came  when  I 
could. 

"I  do  not  doubt  the  statements  of  Judge  Price.  I  am  sure  they  were 
truthful,  for  he  was  a  man  of  truth.  Though,  in  long  years  he  may  have 
fallen  into  some  error  unconsciously  about  even  the  part  he  played  himself 
in  those  times.  It  was  my  intention  to  try  his  statements  by  all  the  con 
temporary  evidence  I  could  secure  both  for  and  against  him.  And  I  give 
you  what  he  told  me,  so  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  find  it  among  my 
papers,  and  advise  you  to  do  as  I  had  intended.  If  it  stands,  all  right; 

if  not  all  right I  believe  the  Repeal  originated  with  him  and  that 

he  should  have  credit  for  it." 


APPENDIX  C 

Senator  Atchison's  Letter,  June  5,    1854 

"In  the  month  of  May  last  year  [1853]  Col.  Benton  made 
speeches  at  Kansas,  Westport  and  Independence  in  which  he 
mounted  ostensibly  two  hobbies :  the  central  railroad  to  the  Pacific 
and  the  organization  of  the  territory  west  of  the  Missouri  and 
Iowa.  Those  speeches  were  intended  to  create  a  false  impression 
upon  the  public  mind,  not  to  accomplish  the  objects  which  he 
professed  to  desire;  they  were  planned  and  delivered  for  one 
object  and  that  object  was  to  stir  up  a  'pestiferous  agitation'  by 
which  his  ambitious  designs  might  be  promoted.  Prompted  by 
hatred  against  all  who  have  refused  to  abandon  their  political 
faith  to  further  his  schemes  and  look  to  the  support  of  the  old 
federal  and  abolition  cohorts  of  the  North,  it  was  he  who  first 
sounded  the  tocsin  of  war  against  the  slaveholding  States  of  which 
Missouri  is  one  in  connection  with  the  Pacific  railroad  and  the 
organization  of  Nebraska  and  Kansas.  344  It  was  from  him  that 
the  first  appeal  went  forth  to  the  freesoil  and  abolition  fanatics  to 
resist  each  and  every  effort  to  open  our  territory  west  on  constitu 
tional  grounds  to  settlement  by  the  citizens  of  all  the  States  of 
the  Union. 

"To  deceive  the  unsuspecting  in  Missouri  he  made  a  great 
clamor  at  the  same  time  about  the  central  route  and  raised  a  false 
alarm  against  the  South.  As  if  this  was  not  sufficient  he  declared 
that  portions  of  that  territory  were  open  to  immediate  settlement 
and  urged  the  pioneers  to  rush  into  it.  Why,  if  he  was  a  sincere 
friend  of  Nebraska  and  the  central  route  did  he  seek  thus  unnec 
essarily  to  embarrass  those  questions  and  mislead  the  people  of 
Missouri  and  the  Union?  You  will  remember  that  he  pursued 
his  sinister  designs  in  various  letters  during  the  following  summer 


344  The  italics  are  mine. 


254  APPENDIX  C 

and  even  caused  a  map  to  be  prepared  and  distributed,  the  bad 
character  of  which  was  fully  exposed  at  that  time. 

"All  of  this  I  understood  (at  the  time)  and  exposed  and 
what  was  then  only  conjecture  is  now  realized.  It  was  not  the 
organization  of  the  territories  and  the  central  route  for  which  he 
cared;  it  was  Col.  Benton's  advance  by  Free  Soil  aid  for  which  he 
was  striving.  Those  questions  were  a  mere  pretext  with  him,  a 
cover  under  which  the  better  to  work  his  wray  insidiously  to  the 
goal  of  his  ambition.  Hence  in  those  speeches  he  said : 

'  'To  defeat  me  (Benton)  is  one  of  their  modes  of  defeating 

the  road The  point  at  which  they  can  do  us  no  harm  is  in 

the  organization  of  the  territories  on  the  Kansas  and  the  Platte. 
Two  things  are  needed  there:  first,  the  establishment  of  the  terri 
torial  government;  and  the  next,  the  extinguishment  of  Indian 
titles.  Both  are  points  of  difficulty  and  peculiarly  subject  to  dan 
gers  from  insidious  opposition.  The  Indian  treaties,  even  when 
negotiated,  will  have  a  perilous  course  to  run  through  the  Senate 
(where  the  proceedings  are  secret)  and  where  a  minority  of  one- 
third  could  defeat  them  and  where  the  pestiferous  question  of  free 
soil  will  mix  itself  with  the  decision.  Near  thirty  years  ago  the 
United  States  made  a  general  extinction  of  Indian  titles  west  of 
Missouri  to  be  assigned  in  parcels  to  emigrating  tribes.  Part  has 
been  assigned,  part  not;  and  this  unassigned  part  I  hold  to  be 
open  to  settlement  without  objection  from  the  Indians.' 

"  'The  danger  from  insidious  opposition'  and  whence  it  was 
to  come  those  speeches  showed.  They  artfully  and  purposely 
created  the  danger  by  awakening  and  inviting  that  pestiferous 
Free  Soil  opposition;  and  by  seeking  at  once  without  waiting  for 
constitutional  action  to  involve  the  settlers  and  the  settlement  of 
the  country  in  the  inextricable  difficulties  which  would  furnish 
another  pretext  for  fanning  the  pestiferous  flame  thus  sought  to 
be  kindled;  subsequent  events  have  demonstrated  Benton's  object. 
He  has  since  become  the  recognized  champion  of  that  very  Free 
Soil  faction  in  opposition  to  the  constitutional  and  republican  mode 
of  settling  those  territories.  He  has  led  the  very  'pestiferous' 
host  which  he  pretended  to  fear.  He  has  become  the  commander 
of  the  'pestiferous  Free  Soil'  opposition  to  Nebraska  and  Kansas! 
Did  I  mistake  his  objects  in  May,  1853?  Judge  ye! 


SENATOR  ATCHISON'S  LETTER  255 

"Again  in  his  letter  of  May  15,  1853,  34S  Benton  said: 
'  'In  the  substance  of  speeches  which  I  delivered  at  Kansas, 
Westport  and  Independence  (and  which  were  intended  for  the 
whole  State  although  delivered  in  one  county)  you  will  see  this 
opposition  described  and  that  under  both  of  its  characters  of  fair 
and  foul,  in  the  latter  of  which  I  include  the  opposition  from  this 
State  and  the  whole  of  which  has  its  root  in  that  traitorous  nulli 
fication  of  which  you  speak At  the  last  session  this  same 

treasonable  doctrine  manifested  itself  in  a  clandestine  opposition 
to  Nebraska  because  it  was  Free  Soil,'  etc. 346 

"This  anyone  can  see  was  directly  intended  to  arouse  the 
abolition  spirit  of  New  England  and  New  York  and  Ohio  and  to 
excite  the  abolitionists  of  St.  Louis  into  activity.  It  required  but 
a  small  portion  of  that  foresight  which  Benton  so  ostentatiously 
claims  to  possess  to  detect  his  real  end  and  aim  in  using  such  lan 
guage.  The  opposition  of  myself  to  Free  Soil  he  denounced  not 
to  injure  me  with  slaveholders,  of  course  not;  but  help  himself 
with  the  Free  Soil  enemies  of  slaveholders^.  That  was  his  object 
and  his  only  object.  To  preach  Freesoilism  was  the  way  to  com 
mend  himself  to  Northern  Freesoilers ;  he  did  this  to  gain  Northern 
not  Southern  support.  I  was  opposed  to  his  Free  Soil  notions 
and  still  am  opposed  to  them  whether  preached  by  him,  Giddings, 
Sumner,  Hale,  Garrison,  Theodore  Parker  or  Wendell  Phillips; 
whether  'insidiously'  manufactured  in  Missouri,  or  boldly  pro 
claimed  in  open  rebellion  and  the  shedding  of  blood  in  the  streets 
of  Boston.  That  treasonable  doctrine  and  all  treasonable  doctrines 
which  call  for  resistance,  open  or  insidious,  to  the  Constitution  and 
laws  I  must,  I  shall  always,  oppose. 

"But  on  what  were  Col.  Benton's  charges  against  the  Demo 
crats  in  Congress,  the  Administration,  the  Democratic  party  of 
Missouri  and  myself  based?  He  has  defined  his  position  to  be  in 
favor  of  Free  Soil  in  Nebraska  and  Kansas.  In  my  speech  at 
Parkville  [Aug.  6]  and  elsewhere  in  Missouri  /  defined  my  posi 
tion,  a  position  which  he  pronounced  'traitorous  nullification'  and 
'treasonable  doctrine,'  a  position  occupied  by  every  sound  Democrat 


345  The  Cole  county  letter,  quoted  in  Chapter  IV. 

346  These  italics  are  Atchison's. 


256  APPENDIX  C 

in  and  cut  of  Congress  and  by  the  present  Democratic  Adminis 
tration  and  fully  and  clearly  taken  and  maintained  in  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill  347  which  has  just  passed  Congress  despite  of  Ben- 
ton  and  his  Free  Soil  friends  in  opposition  to  it  and  which  has 
promptly  received  the  approving  signature  of  Franklin  Pierce  as 
President  of  the  United  States.  That  position  was  against  Free- 
soilism  and  was  thus  distinctly  announced  by  me  at  Parkville. 

^   348 

"Thus  the  doctrine  for  which  I  contended  and  which  Benton 
fiercely  denounced  was  distinctly  enunciated  by  me.  On  that  he 
joined  issue  both  in  Missouri  and  in  Congress.  349  I  contended 
for  the  right  of  the  people  in  the  Territories  to  govern  themselves 
under  the  Federal  Constitution,  and  to  form  republican  State 
constitutions  in  such  wise  as  they  might  deem  expedient,  when 
they  sought  admission  into  the  Union  as  States.  I  contended  that 
each  State  on  coming  into  the  Union,  has  a  right  to  come  in  on 
terms  of  equality  with  the  other  States.  I  denied  the  right  of 
Congress  to  say  to  any  State  of  this  Union  that  it  should  establish 
or  abolish  slavery.  The  Missouri  Compromise  and  the  Missouri 
restriction  practically  asserted  that  Congress  had  such  rights. 
Here  then  was  and  still  is  the  issue;  Benton  insisted  that  Kansas 
and  Nebraska  should  be  Freesoil;  that  the  law  of  organization 
should  be  so  framed  and  ought  to  be  so  framed^  that  all  of  his 
slaveholding  constituents  would  be  excluded  from  those  Terri 
tories;  that  the  citizens  of  one  half  the  Union  should  be  also  ex 
cluded;  that  Congress  had  the  right  and  ought  to  exercise  it,  to 
make  Territories  and  consequently  States  freesoil  States  and  Terri 
tories.  /  accepted  that  issue  and  so  did  the  Democrats  of  Missouri. 
The  battle  has  been  fought  in  Congress  over  the  Douglas  bill  351 
and  the  Democracy  has  won  a  proud  victory.  On  the  one  side 
stood  the  Administration,  the  true-hearted  Democrats  of  the  North, 


347  These  italics  are  mine. 

348  Here  occurs  a  quotation  from  his  Parkville  speech.     See  Chapter 
IV. 

349  The  italics  are  mine. 

350  These  italics  are  Atchison's. 

351  The  italics  are  mine. 


SENATOR  ATCHISON'S  LETTER  257 

nearly  every  Congressman  from  the  Southern  Whigs  and  Demo 
crats,  a  majority  from  every  State  west  of  the  Alleghanies,  from 
the  Falls  of  St.  Anthony  on  the  north  to  the  Gulf  and  Rio  Grande 
on  the  south  (except  Ohio  and  Wisconsin),  aided  gallantly  by 
your  sister  State  on  the  Pacific.  On  the  other  side  were  (to  use 
the  language  of  Benton  when  in  1830  he  was  battling  for  the 
Democracy  and  the  West)  'a  motley  group,  a  most  miscellaneous 
concourse,  the  speckled  progeny  of  many  conjunctions,  veteran 
Federalists,  benevolent  females,  politicians  who  have  lost  their 
caste,'  etc.,  all  marching  under  the  leadership  of  Benton,  Giddings, 
Sumner,  Chase,  Seward  and  Company.  The  lines  were  thus 
drawn  on  the  national  theater  as  they  had  previously  been 
drawn  by  Benton  in  our  State, 3S1  the  Democracy  battling  for 
the  Constitution  and  the  rights  of  the  people  to  govern  themselves 
against  the  gathered  fragments  of  old  Federalism,  abolitionism 
and  all  the  varied  isms  of  which  Freesoil  has  been  so  prolific  in 
these  later  times.  My  position  on  this  subject  was  well-known 
in  Washington,  351  and  the  issue  that  Benton  made  upon  it  I  never 
shrunk  from 352 

"The  same  distinct  acceptance  of  the  issue  tendered  by  Benton 
was  not  only  made  by  me  in  my  speech  at  Parkville,  but  also  at 
Weston  and  Fayette  and  elsewhere.  At  Weston  I  declared: 

' ' .  .  .  .1  will  support  a  bill  to  organize  a  government  for 
that  Territory  upon  the  condition  that  such  bill  contains  no  restric 
tions  upon  the  subject  of  slavery;  and  not  otherwise.  I  will  vote 
for  a  bill  that  leaves  the  slaveholder  and  non-slaveholder  upon 
terms  of  equality.  /  am  willing  that  the  people  who  may  settle 
there  and  who  have  the  deepest  interest  in  this  question  should 
decide  it  for  themselves. 353  As  a  very  large  and  respectable  por 
tion  of  my  constituents  are  directly  and  indirectly  interested  in 
slave  property,  I  am  unwilling  that  they  with  this  species  of 
property  should  be  excluded.  I  will  give  no  advantage  to  one 

citizen  over  another That  there  may  be  no  mistake  and 

that  I  may  not  be  misunderstood  hereafter,  I  now  say  emphatically 


352  Here  occurs   another  quotation   from   his   Parkville  speech,   and   a 
brief,  caustic,  allusion  to  Theodore  Parker  and  the  Anthony  Burns  case. 

353  The  italics  are  mine. 


258  APPENDIX  C 

that  I  will  not  vote  for  any  bill  that  makes  Nebraska  Freesoil 
Territory.  I  have  not,  and  do  not  intend  upon  any  occasion  to 
yield  one  inch  to  the  spirit  of  freesoilism  and  abolitionism,  whether 
they  exhibit  themselves  at  home  or  at  Washington.' 

"7  trust  Fellow-citizens,  that  I  have  redeemed  this  pledge  to 
the  letter,  353  I  congratulate  you  and  the  country  that  the  boldness 
with  which  this  new  abolition  crusade  was  met  has  resulted  in 
banishing,  it  is  hoped  forever,  from  the  halls  of  Congress  the  long 
continued  agitation  of  fanatics  against  our  property  and  our  rights, 
the  guarantees  of  the  Constitution  and  the  cherished  principles  of 
self-government. 

"As  Benton,  however,  continued  his  assaults  in  letter  after 
letter  during  the  whole  of  last  summer,  it  became  necessary  for  me 
repeatedly  to  meet  the  issue  he  had  formed 354 

"It  was  thus  down  to  the  latest  moments  before  leaving  Mis 
souri  to  attend  the  meeting  of  Congress  at  the  present  session. 
7  openly  accepted  the  issue  that  Benton  had  made.  35S  Early  in 
the  present  session  Judge  Douglas,  as  chairman  of  the  Committee 
on  Territories,  introduced  a  bill  virtually  repealing  the  Missouri 
restriction.  To  avoid  all  possibility  of  cavil  or  doubt  he  phrased 
that  part  of  the  bill  anew.  Then  came  in  Congress  the  fierce 
conflict  which  Benton  had  foreseen  and  for  which  he  had  prepared 
the  Freesoilers  and  abolitionists  and  which  after  nearly  five  months' 
struggle  resulted  in  the  triumph  of  the  Constitution  and  justice. 
7  declared  that  I  would  vote  for  no  bill  unless  it  rid  us  of  the 
unconstitutional  and  anti-republican  and  iniquitous  restriction  of 
1820.  So  said  a  large  majority  of  Congress.  The  Administration 
nobly  came  up  to  the  same  standard;  Benton  threw  himself  into 
the  leadership  of  the  opposition,  notwithstanding  he  first  obtained 
the  confidence  and  support  of  the  Missourians  by  his  opposition  to 
the  infamous  restriction  and  owes  his  political  life  to  that  fact; 
notwithstanding  in  an  elaborate  speech  in  1830  he  demonstrated  by 
the  record  that  from  the  first  organization  of  the  government  to 
that  hour,  northeastern  federalism,  with  its  ally  abolitionism  had 

354  Here  occurs  a  quotation  from  his  speech  at  Fayette.     See  Chapter 
IV. 

355  The  italics  in  this  paragraph  are  mine. 


SENATOR  ATCHISON'S  LETTER  259 

always  warred  against  the  growth  and  prosperity  of  the  West  and 
that  the  South  generally  aided  by  the  true  Democrats  of  the  North 
have  striven  to  beat  back  the  tide  of  federal  hostility;  notwith 
standing  the  constitutional  equality  of  the  States  was  at  issue  and 
the  rights  and  interests  of  his  constituents;  notwithstanding  the 
West  in  almost  solid  column  was  demanding  that  the  Indian  wall 
on  our  frontier  should  be  removed  and  Missouri  be  permitted  freely 
to  expand  westward  towards  the  Pacific]  notwithstanding  the  'wolf 
howl'  of  abolitionism  and  federalism  was  again  raised  in  order  to 
roll  back  from  our  State  the  tide  of  wealth  and  prosperity  about 
to  flow  through  it;  despite  too  his  talk  last  spring  and  summer 
about  the  importance  and  necessity  of  the  immediate  settlement 
and  organization  of  that  Territory,  he  was  foremost  in  the  contest 
against  right  and  justice,  laboring  with  bold  and  unblushing 
effrontery  to  defeat  what  he  had  pretended  most  earnestly  to  desire, 
even  to  the  extent  of  villifying  the  Administration  and  a  Demo 
cratic  Congress,  falsifying  history,  and  openly  joining  in  the  abo 
lition  crusade  against  Missouri  and  the  West  and  South  with  such 
coadjutors  as  Giddings  and  Chase. 

"To  the  very  last  he  cooperated  with  those  enemies  of  the 
West  and  South  in  the  most  disorganizing  and  factious  efforts  to 
prevent  a  decided  majority  in  Congress  from  passing  a  constitu 
tional  and  anti-freesoil  law  for  the  immediate  organization  of 
Nebraska  and  Kansas. 

"I  now  appeal  to  every  man  of  candor  and  common  sense  in 
Missouri  whether  I  was  not  right  when  last  summer  I  boldly  took 
up  the  gauntlet  which  Benton  hurled  at  my  feet,  and  stripped  from 
him  the  mask  he  wore;  declared  that  the  'insidious  opposition'  to 
the  territorial  organization  and  the  'traitorous  nullification'  were 
his;  that  his  pretended  love  for  Nebraska  and  the  Central  route 
were  mere  hypocritical  pretenses  on  his  part.  Subsequent  events, 
history,  recorded  history,  has  made  that  fact  which  was  then  mere 
prediction. 

"This  issue  made  by  Benton  356  between  Freesoil  and  abolition 
ism  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Constitution  and  the  rights  of  self- 
government  on  the  other  hand  has  to  be  met  in  Missouri  at  the 


260  APPENDIX  C 

ballot  boxes  next  August.  356  The  abolitionists  of  the  North  and 
Benton  their  champion  are  marshalling  their  forces  for  the  contest. 
The  first  great  conflict  is  in  our  State.  356  Hold  Benton  and  the 
Swiss  guard  to  the  issue  they  have  made.  We  only  ask  that  there 
shall  be  no  dodging;  that  they  shall  stand  to  the  banner  which 
he  has  ostentatiously  erected.  I  know  that  thousands  who  did  not 
understand  his  'insidious'  designs,  honest  and  good  men,  have 
deserted  him  during  the  last  three  months;  men  who  are  sincere 
and  zealous  Democrats  but  who  last  year  could  not  be  made  to 
believe  that  one  so  long  honored  by  Missouri  could  so  foully  betray 
her  and  the  Constitution.  Now  Benton  himself  has  given  them 
proof  positive.  There  is  no  room  for  doubt  from  this  hour 
forward 357 

"Before  passing  to  another  point  I  would  refer  to  the  third 
resolution  adopted  by  a  county  meeting  in  St.  Louis  on  the  ninth 
of  January  last,  358  which  meeting  was  composed  of  the  confidential 
friends  and  mouthpieces  of  Benton.  At  that  meeting  Messrs. 
W.  V.  N.  Boy,  Thomas  L.  Price,  B.  Gratz  Brown,  A.  Kreckel, 
H.  Dusenbury  and  John  A.  Kasson  made  the  speeches.  A  com 
mittee  of  twenty-four  reported  the  resolution  through  F.  P.  Blair, 
Jr.,  and  said  resolution  was  on  motion  of  A  Keyser  unanimously 
adopted,  according  to  the  report  in  Benton's  organ.  The  third 
resolution  was  as  follows: 

"  'Resolved  that  we  are  in  favor  of  the  immediate  organization 
of  a  territorial  government  for  Nebraska,  and  that  we  regard  all 


356  The  italics  are  mine. 

357  At  this  point  Mr.  Atchison  took  up  the  consideration  of  the  subject 
of  the  Pacific  railroad  and  said:    "Intimately  connected  with  this  the  main 
issue  made  by  Benton  was  his  effort  to  mislead  the  people  concerning   a 
railroad  to  the  Pacific.     One  who  did  not  know  the  hollow  insincerity  of 
Benton  would  have  supposed  last  year  that  he  was  panting  for  the  open 
ing  of  Congress  in  order  that  he  might  introduce  and  carry  through  a  bill 
to  construct  a  railroad  to  the  Pacific  without  waiting  for  what  he  asserted 
was  the  unnecessary  surveys  of  United  States  engineers  as  well  as  to  carry 
a  bill  for  the  immediate  organization  of  Nebraska.     The  latter  he  asserted 
was  an  essential  step  to  the  former.     Yet  I  have  shown  that  instead  of 
supporting  he  became   a  leader  of  the  opposition  to  territorial  organiza 
tion " 

358  This  meeting  was  mentioned  in  Chapter  VI. 


SENATOR  ATCHISON'S  LETTER  261 

who  oppose  it  upon  whatever  pretext,  as  hostile  to  the  best  interests 
of  the  State.' 

"Thus  out  of  the  mouths  of  his  own  chosen  witnesses  Col. 
Benton  stands  condemned  'as  hostile  to  the  best  interests  of  the 
State.' 3S9 

"The  Douglas  bill  was  a  western  measure.  It  was  designed 
to  add  to  the  power  and  wealth  of  the  West.  36°  The  same  po 
litical  party  which  opposed  the  organization  of  Louisiana  and 
Texas  and  threatened  to  dissolve  the  Union  if  that  acquisition  was 
made;  that  opposed  the  sending  of  forces  to  protect  western  settle 
ments  during  the  early  Indian  wars;  that  opposed  the  war  of  1812 
and  rejoiced  at  the  massacres  in  the  northwest  and  mourned  over 
the  triumphs  of  Macomb  and  Brown  and  Harrison  and  Jackson; 
that  in  the  Hartford  Convention  hatched  Freesoilism  by  resolving 
that  another  slave  State  should  never  be  admitted  into  the  Union; 
that  caused  the  Missouri  agitation  and  that  agitation  kept  this 
State  out  of  the  Union  for  about  two  years,  and  forced  the  passage 
of  the  so-called  Missouri  Compromise;  that  denounced  the  war 
with  Mexico ;  that  concocted  the  Wilmot  Proviso ;  that  contended 
against  the  'indemnity  for  the  past  and  security  for  the  future' 
whereby  New  Mexico,  Utah  and  California  were  acquired;  that 
erected  the  Buffalo  platform  to  defeat  Gen.  Cass;  a  party  of  sec 
tional  (and  abolitionist)  caste,  which  has  never  failed  to  war 
against  the  West,  36°  the  Constitution  and  the  honor  of  the  country. 
Well  might  St.  Louis  declare  Benton  as  hostile  to  her  best  interests ; 
for  no  portion  of  the  country  is  to  be  so  largely  benefited  by  open 
ing  Nebraska  and  Kansas  to  settlement.  All  of  the  railroad 
interests  are  largely  interested,  for  a  terminus  on  the  western 
frontier,  blocked  up  by  an  Indian  wall,  is  very  different  from  an 
indefinite  extension  west  through  new  and  rapidly  opening  settle 
ments.  Every  interest  in  St.  Louis  was  connected  with  this 
territorial  question  and  there  can  be  no  plausible  excuse  for  the 
envenomed  hostility  wrhich  the  St.  Louis  representative  has 
manifested  since  the  Senate  first  commenced  to  act  on  the  subject 
during  the  present  session  of  Congress.  His  friends  even  had 


359  The  italics  are  Atchison's. 

360  The  italics  are  mine. 


262  APPENDIX  C 

the  sagacity  to  see  all  this  last  January  and  then  to  denounce  him 
in  advance  if  he  dared  to  betray  those  interests  as  he  has  since  done. 

"In  his  recent  speech  against  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  and 
the  Administration,  Col.  Benton  said  he  should  obey  the  instruc 
tions  of  the  Legislature  passed  in  1847.  This  is  an  afterthought 
for  him.  When  the  instructions  to  which  he  refers  were  in  force 
he  voted  against  their  requirement,  as  he  did  against  the  known 
wishes  of  nine-tenths  of  his  constituents,  when  the  Texas  annexa 
tion  measure  was  before  the  Senate.  The  same  Legislature  that 
elected  him  to  the  Senate  at  the  session  of  1844-45,  elected  him 
under  a  distinct  pledge  given  by  his  friends  that  he  would  obey 
the  instructions  which  might  be  passed.  Without  that  pledge  he 
could  not  have  been  elected.  That  Legislature  passed  these  instruc 
tions  intended,  as  he  and  all  others  well  knew,  expressly  for  him: 

"  'Fifth  resolution :  That  in  the  opinion  of  this  General 
Assembly,  a  great  majority  of  the  people  of  this  State  prefer  that 
Texas  should  be  annexed  to  the  United  States  without  dividing 
her  territory  into  slaveholding  and  non-slaveholding  States;  but 
leaving  that  question  to  be  settled  by  the  people  who  now  or  ?nay 
hereafter,  occupy  the  territory  that  may  be  annexed."1  361 

"Thus  did  Missouri  announce  the  same  great  doctrines  for 
which  I  contended  and  on  which  the  Douglas  bill  was  framed  362 
and  against  which  Benton  has  joined  issue  with  me,  with  the  Legis 
lature  and  with  the  Democracy  of  Missouri,  with  Congress  and 
with  the  Administration. 

"Again  our  State  declared  through  her  Legislature  that  doc 
trine  in  1849,  the  same  to  which  no  one  save  Benton  and  a  few 
St.  Louis  Freesoilers  have  ever  dared  openly  to  express  any  dissent 
in  our  State.  That  doctrine,  the  same  as  that  on  which  Douglas's 
bill  and  the  Administration  stand  as  well  as  the  whole  Democracy 
of  the  United  States  was  thus  enunciated  by  a  resolution  of  our 
General  Assembly: 

"  'Resolved,  That  the  right  to  prohibit  slavery  in  any  Terri 
tory  belongs  exclusively  to  the  people  thereof  and  can  only  be 


361  The  italics  are  mine.     Cong.  Globe,  xiv,  154.     See  Chapter  VI. 

362  The  italics  are  mine. 


SENATOR  ATCHISON'S  LETTER  263 

exercised  by  them  in  forming  their  Constitution  for  a  State  gov 
ernment  or  in  their  sovereign  capacity  as  an  independent  State.' 

"Benton  has  in  this  as  in  most  other  matters  shown  'himself 
'hostile  to  the  best  interests  of  the  State'  and  to  its  cherished  opinion. 
Ever  since  he  commenced  courting  Freesoil  support  he  has  turned 
his  back  upon  Missouri  and  his  constituents. 

"Fellow-citizens,  in  the  great  contest  which  has  just  ended 
in  Congress  upon  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  the  whole  Missouri 
delegation  has  proved  true  to  the  instructions  of  the  Legislature, 
to  the  Constitution  and  to  the  rights  of  self-government,  ex 
cept  only  the  representative  from  St.  Louis.  Geyer,  Lamb,  Phelps, 
Caruthers,  Miller,  Oliver,  and  Lindley  have  stood  up  like  men 
for  the  Douglas  bill  and  deserve  well  of  their  constituents. 

"DAVID  R.  ATCHISON. 

"Washington,  June  5,   1854." 363 


363  This  letter  was  printed  in  the  Missouri  Republican,  June  21,  1854. 


APPENDIX  D 

Colonel  'Parser's  "Secret  History  of  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  Bill" 

Colonel  John  A.  Parker's  article  on  The  Secret 
History  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill,  referred  to  in 
the  text,  was  afterwards  published  in  pamphlet 
form, 364  and  in  that  form  is  preceded  by  an  "Intro- 

364  Of  this  pamphlet,  I  have  seen  but  two  copies.  One  is  in  the 
Boston  Public  Library,  and  the  other  was  loaned  to  me  by  Mrs,  R.  E. 
Wynne  of  Tappahannock,  Essex  County,  Virginia,  the  only  surviving  child 
of  Colonel  Parker.  The  title  pages  of  these  two  copies  differ.  That  of 
the  Boston  copy  is  as  follows:  "Reprinted  from  the  National  Quarterly 
Review,  July,  1880.  Copyrighted.  What  Led  to  the  War,  or  the  Secret 
History  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill.  By  Col.  John  A.  Parker  of  Virginia. 
With  an  Introductory  Note  by  Waldorf  H.  Phillips  of  New  York.  New 
York,  Thompson  and  Morean,  Printers,  51  &  53  Maiden  Lane,  1880." 
The  title  page  of  the  Wynne  copy  is  as  follows:  "The  Missing  Link. 
Reprinted  from  the  National  Quarterly  Review  for  July,  1880.  Copy 
right.  What  Led  to  the  War  or  the  Secret  History  of  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  Bill  by  Col.  John  A.  Parker  of  Virginia.  With  an  Appendix 
containing  Sketches  and  Reminiscences  of  'The  Richmond  Enquirer'  and 
'Whig'  and  their  Editors,  and  an  Introductory  Note  by  Waldorf  H.  Phil 
lips  of  New  York.  Washington,  D.  C.  Gray  &  Clarkson,  Printers  and 
Publishers,  1886." 

The  body  of  the  two  editions  of  the  pamphlet  are,  I  think,  precisely 
alike,  except  that  the  Introductory  Note  of  the  Wynne  copy  contains  this 
statement  which  did  not  appear  in  the  earlier  reprint:  "This  was  written, 
viz.,  in  October,  1883.  Hon.  Jefferson  Davis  has  written  to  Colonel  Parker, 
and  confirmed  every  fact  contained  in  this  paper."  Very  few  papers  be 
longing  to  Colonel  Parker  have  been  preserved,  and  such  as  are  known  to 
be  in  existence  are  in  the  possession  of  Mrs.  Wynne  through  whose  courtesy 
I  have  been  able  to  examine  them.  The  Davis  letter  has  not  been  found. 
There  is  some  correspondence  of  Parker  and  Davis  in  the  Confederate 


THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA  BILL  265 

ductory  Note"  written  by  Waldorf  H.  Phillips  of 
New  York,  giving  a  number  of  facts  in  Colonel 
Parker's  life,  of  which  the  most  important  follow. 

At  the  time  the  pamphlet  was  written  Colonel 
Parker  was,  and  had  been  since  1859,  representing  the 
State  of  Virginia  "in  a  matter  of  very  great  import 
ance  to  her  and  to  other  States."  He  and  Mr.  Thom 
as  Green,  a  son-in-law  of  Thomas  Ritchie,  were  as 
sociated  as  agents  for  the  State  of  Virginia  to  procure 
a  settlement  from  the  Federal  Government  for  money 
loaned  by  the  State  of  Virginia  for  the  purpose  of 
erecting  public  buildings,  and  also  for  money  loaned 
in  the  War  of  1812.  In  the  settlement  of  these  claims 
which  were  not  finally  adjusted  until  after  his  death 
in  1894,  Colonel  Parker  was  engaged  for  some 
years. 36S  For  forty  years  he  had  been  officially  con 
nected  with  the  Federal  Government  either  at  home 
or  abroad.  In  1835  he  was  sent  by  President  Jack 
son  on  a  secret  mission  to  Texas  connected  with  the 
independence  of  that  State.  In  1851  he  was  appoint 
ed  Librarian  of  the  House  of  Representatives.  In 
1855  he  was  Secretary  of  the  Judiciary  Committee 
of  the  House  which  then  had  charge  of  the  investi 
gation  of  the  great  frauds  consummated  by  Gardiner 
and  others  under  the  Mexican  treaty.  In  1856  Park- 


Museum  at  Richmond,  Va.,  but  I  have  been  unable  to  get  trace  of  this 
valuable  document. 

I  have  also  been  unable  to  discover  who  Waldorf  H.  Phillips  may  have 
been.  Mrs.  Wynne  could  give  me  no  information  upon  this  point.  Mr. 
Phillips  concluded  his  Introductory  Note  by  saying  that  "Colonel  Parker 
is  not  even  acquainted  with  Mr.  Phillips,  nor  does  he  know  certainly  how 
he  obtained  the  information  he  has  given  in  his  introductory " 

365  Beverley  Tucker  was  the  agent  for  South  Carolina  in  a  similar 
matter.  Mrs.  Wynne  is  authority  for  these  statements. 


266  APPENDIX  D 

er  was  appointed  Register  of  the  Land  Office  of  Ne 
braska;  in  1860  he  was  appointed  United  States  Con 
sul  at  Honolulu.  After  he  had  made  three  requests 
to  be  relieved  from  this  post  the  request  was  finally 
granted  in  1862.  After  his  return  to  the  United 
States  Colonel  Parker  was  offered  a  mission  to  South 
America  which  he  declined. 366 
Mr.  Phillips  states  that 

".  .  .  .It  was  Colonel  Parker's  good  fortune  to  be  closely 
connected,  politically  and  officially,  with  some  of  the  principal 
actors,  and  with  others  by  the  closest  ties  of  personal  friendship 
and  family  relations.  Among  the  latter  was  one  who  exerted  more 
influence  in  making  and  unmaking  public  men  in  the  United 
States  than  any  other  man  in  the  same  period,  and  of  the  posses 
sion  of  whose  entire  confidence,  to  a  degree  which  he  did  not  fully 
impart  to  his  own  son,  Colonel  Parker  has  abundant  evidence.  This 
was  Mr.  Ritchie, 367  editor  of  the  Washington  Union.  There 
was  another,  who  reached  the  Presidency,  whose  confidential  friend 
our  author  was  for  more  than  twenty  years."  368 

366  "His   record   in   all   Departments,"   say   Mr.   Phillips,   "shows   that 
he  has  always  discharged  the  duties  assigned  him  to  the  entire  satisfaction 
of  the  appointing  power  as  well  as  his  own  lasting  merit." 

367  Thomas  Ritchie,  who  was  also  editor  of  the  Richmond  Enquirer 
for  forty  years;  died  1854. 

368  Probably  President  Buchanan.     The  Virginia  Magazine  of  History 
and  Biography   for  July,   1905,   contains   some   "Reminiscences  of   Colonel 
Parker"  relating  to  the  nomination  of  Buchanan  and  of  Parker's  relations 
with  him. 

In  these  "Reminiscences,"  written  in  March,  1877,  there  occurs  the  fol 
lowing  reference  to  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  from  which  it  is  fair  to 
infer  that  Colonel  Parker  had  contemplated  the  publication  of  his  story 
of  the  origin  of  the  Repeal  several  years  before  his  article  was  published: 

"  'The  Kansas-Nebraska1  bill.  Only  two  persons  are  now  living  who 
know  the  real  author  of  that  bill,  its  history  and  purposes.  Judge  Douglas 
was  the  reputed  author — and  its  patron,  and  the  American  people,  even 
now,  think  he  was  the  real  author;  I  know  he  was  not — and  I  know  how 
and  why  he  became  its  active  patron. 

"The  true  history  of  the  bill  is  written,  it  has  never  yet  been  published, 


THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA  BILL  267 

In  anticipation  of  the  very  pertinent  query  why 
the  publication  of  the  facts  contained  in  this  pam 
phlet  had  been  so  long  delayed,  Mr.  Phillips  has  this 
to  say: 

".  .  .  .It  has  been  only  after  persistent  urging  on  the  part 
of  his  friends  and  many  prominent  gentlemen  all  over  the  coun 
try,  and  after  many  years  of  deliberation,  that  Colonel  Parker 
has  been  induced  to  write  his  article.  He  believed  until  very 
lately,  that  the  time  had  not  come  for  a  calm  consideration  and  an 
impartial  judgment  of  the  facts.  The  angry  and  bitter  feeling  en 
gendered  by  the  late  struggle  had  not  sufficiently  died  out " 

Mr.  Phillips  adds  that 

"Colonel  Parker  desires  to  say  that  no  confidence  is  violated 
in  making  this  publication,  and  that  the  information  it  contains 
was  honorably  acquired.  He  also  wishes  to  distinctly  disclaim 
any  intention  to  assail  the  motives  of  the  originator  of  the  impor 
tant  measure,  who,  he  believes  was  governed  by  the  highest  con 
siderations  which  bind  man  to  his  fellow  man,  the  belief  that  he 
was  honorably  serving  his  country,  and  fidelity  to  personal  and 
political  friendship,  or  of  any  of  the  distinguished  actors  of  whom 
he  speaks  or  to  whom  he  alludes.  If  their  acts  proved  disastrous, 
they  should  not  be  too  harshly  judged.  It  is  frequently  the  case, 
that  men,  intending  no  injury  and  with  the  purest  motives,  commit 
great  and  lamentable  errors," 

Mr.  Phillips's  introductory  statement  is  not  the 
only  testimony  bearing  upon  Colonel  Parker's  credi 
bility  as  a  witness.  As  has  already  been  stated,  Colo 
nel  Parker  in  1851  was  appointed  Librarian  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  at  Washington.  Early  in 
December,  1853,  at  the  opening  of  the  first  session  of 
the  33d  Congress,  the  session  which  enacted  the  Re 
peal,  Parker  was  removed  from  that  office  by  the 

but  may  be  before  I  die — or  afterwards,  and  also  these  sketches,  which  will 
be  found  among  my  papers,  with  my  correspondence,  to  sustain  and  fully 
verify,  every  statement  I  have  made." 


268  APPENDIX  D 

Clerk  of  the  House,  Mr.  John  W.  Forney  of  Penn 
sylvania,  with  whom  the  power  of  appointment  and 
removal  was  then  vested.  This  action  of  Forney's 
seems  to  have  occasioned  no  small  amount  of  agita 
tion  and  indignation  among  the  members  of  the  Vir 
ginia  Congressional  delegation,  and  the  Richmond 
Enquirer  devoted  considerable  space  to  the  circum 
stances  of  the  removal,  including  the  publication  of 
a  long  letter  369  from  Colonel  Parker  in  which  he  re 
plies  to  certain  criticisms  by  Mr.  Forney.  In  all  this 
there  is  nothing  which  tends  to  throw  discred 
it  upon  Colonel  Parker  or  to  impeach  the 
value  of  his  testimony.  "Fairfax,"  the  Wash 
ington  Correspondent  of  the  Richmond  En 
quirer,  spoke  of  him  at  this  time  in  the  following 
terms:  "Colonel  John  A.  Parker  of  Virginia  is 
known  to  most  of  your  readers  as  a  politician  of  abil 
ity  and  as  an  honorable  gentleman.  He  is  and  al 
ways  has  been  a  sound  Democrat  and  has  been  Libra 
rian  of  the  House  of  Representatives  for  the  past  two 
years "  37° 


369  This   letter   was   dated  December   10,   1853,   and   appeared   in   the 
Enquirer,  December  20. 

370  Writing  December  6,   1853,  in  the  Enquirer  of  December  9,  1853. 
"Fairfax"  continues:     "This  office  is  within  the  gift  of  the  Clerk  of  the 
House.     To-day  Mr.  Parker  was  removed  by  Forney.     The  cause  assigned 
is,  the  absence  of  Mr.  Parker  from  Washington  from  time  to  time  during 
the  summer  when  there  is  nothing  to  do.   ...  The  majority  of  the  Virginia 
delegation  would  not  vote  for  Forney  for  Clerk  and  Mr.  Parker  would  not 
be  made  the  tool  to  advocate  the  reelection  of  the  'stool  pigeon'  candidate 
and  hence  his  removal.     It  is  to  revenge  himself  upon  the  Virginia  dele 
gation  that  Forney  has  struck  off  Parker's   head.     Probably  he  may  yet 
regret  the   gratification  of  his  malice.     The  Librarian   has  no  connection 
with  the  clerkship  and  there  is  no  reason  why  he  should  be  appointed  by 
the  Clerk.     A  movement  is  now  on  foot  to  make  the  office  elective  and  to 
restore  Mr.  Parker  to  his  place  by  vote  of  the  House.    This  should  be  done. 


THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA  BILL  269 

The  facts  stated  above  create  a  strong  presump 
tion  in  favor  of  the  reliability  of  Parker's  testi 
mony.  It  may  be  alleged  on  the  other  hand  that  atN 
the  age  of  seventy-six  371  a  man's  memory  is  likely  to 
be  so  defective  as  to  be  quite  unreliable.  To  this  the  ' 
rejoinder  may  be  made  that  the  circumstances  con-  \ 
nected  with  an  event  of  such  interest  and  importance 
and  magnitude  as  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Com 
promise  would  sink  more  deeply  in  one's  mind  and  be 
recalled  after  the  lapse  of  years  with  much  greater 
distinctness  and  accuracy  than  circumstances  of  or 
dinary  importance.  Especially  w7ould  this  line  of 
reasoning  hold  true  of  a  professional  politician  a 
part  of  whose  business  it  is  to  observe  accurately  and 
hold  tenaciously  in  mind  events  of  such  supreme  po 
litical  importance  as  was  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise. 

After  this  preliminary  examination  of  Colonel 
Parker's  credibility  as  a  witness,  we  are  prepared  to 
take  up  his  testimony. 

"The  passage  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  and  the  execution 

It  is  a  point  of  honor  with  the  Virginia  and  Southern  Democrats  who  re 
fused  to  vote  for  Forney;  the  justification  or  the  condemnation  of  their 
course  is  involved  in  the  decision.  There  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  action  of 
the  House.  It  will  be  glad  to  do  justice "  On  the  thirteenth,  Fair 
fax  wrote:  "The  resolution  to  elect  a  House  Librarian  was  defeated  to-day 
by  four  votes.  It  will  yet  pass  in  some  shape  or  other.  The  majority  of  the 
House  are  in  favor  of  it."  In  the  Enquirer  of  December  16,  1853.  See 
Cong.  Globe,  xxviii,  Pt.  i,  22,  34,  35,  40,  and  the  remarks  of  Mr.  Bayly 
of  Virginia,  December  22,  1853. 

371  Parker  was  born  February  20,  1804,  in  Westmoreland  County, 
Virginia,  and  died,  June,  1894,  in  his  ninety-first  year.  This  would  make 
his  age  at  the  time  his  pamphlet  first  appeared,  seventy-six.  Mrs.  Wynne 
states  in  a  letter  that  "he  was  in  perfect  health  when  he  wrote  that 
pamphlet  and  had  the  most  remarkable  memory  I  ever  knew.  He  was 
called  a  'walking  encyclopaedia.'  Never  forgot  dates." 


270  APPENDIX  D 

of  the  law  by  Presidents  Pierce  and  Buchanan,  led  directly  to  se 
cession  and  its  consequences.  The  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  was  the 
most  important  which  ever  passed  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States.  Yet  the  American  people  to  this  day  do  not  know,  and 
cannot  have  known,  who  was  its  author,  or  what  were  the  imme 
diate  objects  to  be  accomplished  by  its  passage.  Stephen  A.  Doug 
las  was,  and  still  is,  believed  by  the  country  to  have  been  its 
author.  It  is  a  fact  that  he,  as  Chairman  of  the  Senate  Committee 
on  Territories,  reported  it  to  the  Senate,  and  was  its  able  and 
active  supporter  and  advocate.  But  Mr.  Douglas  was  not  its 
author. 

"That  the  people  of  to-day  may  know  the  importance  of  that 
bill,  it  is  necessary  that  a  brief  sketch  be  given  of  the  slavery 
question.  The  writer  desires  to  say,  and  it  is  due  to  the  reader,  that 
he  was  in  1854  m  a  position  to  know  many  facts  and  incidents 
connected  with  this  bill  which  were  not  accessible  to  the  public, 
or  even  to  the  press  of  the  country.  He  believes  only  one  other 
person,  perhaps  two,  to  be  now  living,  familiar  with  the  origin 
and  secret  history  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill.  He  may  also  add 
that  he  is  familiar  with,  and  has  taken  part  in,  the  slavery  agita 
tion  since  1819  and  1820,  and  that  he  was  a  slaveholder  until 
the  late  war.  As  early  as  1835  ne  was  convinced  that  slavery 
was  one  of  the  greatest  evils  we  had  to  contend  with,  and  the 
greatest  barrier  to  national  prosperity.  These  views  were  ob 
tained  by  observations  made  in  extensive  travels  through  the 
Southern  and  Western  States.  He,  however,  disapproved  of  the 
slavery  agitation  as  conducted  by  Garrison  and  his  coworkers. 
He  believed  that  their  course  delayed  the  emancipation  of  the 
slaves,  so  much  desired  by  some  of  the  most  distinguished  men, 
slave-owners,  in  Virginia,  in  1831  and  1832,  who  were  then  en 
deavoring  to  devise  some  scheme  for  gradual  emancipation." 

A  sketch  of  the  slavery  controversy  in  the  United 
States  from  the  beginning  down  to  1854,  covering 
several  pages,  is  here  omitted. 

"The  people  of  Missouri  had  commenced  the  cultivation  of 
hemp,  a  crop  yielding  large  profits,  but  which  it  was  believed 


THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA  BILL  271 

could  not  be  successfully  produced  except  by  slave  labor.  372  That 
portion  of  Nebraska  which  is  now  Kansas  was  regarded  as  pecul 
iarly  adapted  to  the  cultivation  of  hemp.  It  was  known  by  the 
representatives  of  Missouri  that  for  this  reason  the  repeal  of  the 
Missouri  Compromise  would  be  popular  with  the  people  of  that 
State. 

"Thomas  H.  Benton  had  served  thirty  years  in  the  Senate, 
but  had  then  been  superseded.  He  had  lost  caste  with  a  portion 
of  the  Democratic  party,  after  having  been  for  many  years  its 
trusted  and  fearless  leader.  He  never  was  popular  with  either  of 
the  extreme  wings  of  the  party,  and  was  specially  objectionable 
to  the  friends  of  Mr.  Calhoun.  He  was  too  national  to  be  pop 
ular  with  the  nullifiers  and  secessionists  of  the  South  or  abolition 
ists  of  the  North.  He  had  been  the  strongest  supporter  of  Mr. 
Van  Buren's  administration,  and  many  believed  that  he  sympathiz 
ed  with  that  gentleman  in  1848.  After  being  defeated  for  the 
Senate  he  was  elected  to  the  House  of  Representatives,  but  he 
looked  forward  to  a  reelection  to  the  Senate  when  the  term  of  his 
Lite  colleague,  the  Hon.  D.  R.  Atchison,  should  expire.  He  had 
been  further  alienated  from  the  Democratic  party  by  his  opposi 
tion  to  Mr.  Folk's  administration  during  the  Mexican  War,  and 
the  bitter  warfare  which  he  waged  against  Secretary  Marcy,  Mn 
Ritchie,  and  other  prominent  men  of  the  party.  Mr.  Polk  had 
made  an  effort  to  conciliate  him,  and  against  the  protests  of  three 
members  of  his  Cabinet,  he  appointed  him  Generalissimo  of  the 
armies  in  Mexico,  to  which  office  he  was  confirmed  by  the  Senate. 

3?2  Paxton's  Annals,  63  ff.  gives  a  few  interesting  statements  about 
the  production  and  prices  of  hemp  in  that  county  during  this  period. 
"The  Springfield  (Massachusetts)  Republican  is  permitted  to  extract 
the  following  passages  from  a  private  letter  written  by  an  East 
ern  gentleman  now  resident  in  Missouri  to  a  friend  in  Springfield.  The 
Republican  says:  'We  know  the  gentleman  well,  and  his  statements  are 
entirely  reliable.'  'I  am  informed  that  the  adjacent  territories  of  Kansas 
and  Nebraska  to  the  distance  of  two  hundred  miles  west,  furnish  hemp 
lands  equal  to  the  best  in  Missouri.  Already  hundreds  of  hemp  growers 
have  made  their  selections  for  new  farms  in  the  vile-born  territories  and 
yet  we  have  heard  that  Kansas  and  Nebraska  are  unsuited  to  slave  labor.'" 
The  geography  and  climate  are  then  described  at  some  length.  —  Quoted 
in  Missouri  Republican,  June  23,  1854. 


272  APPENDIX  D 

He  was  clothed  with  diplomatic  powers.  In  one  hand  he  was  to 
hold  the  sword  and  in  the  other  the  olive  branch.  But  just  at  the 
time  he  was  to  leave  on  his  mission,  a  misunderstanding  arose  and 
he  was  not  sent.  Mr.  Atchison  had  been  President  of  the  Senate, 
was  a  native  of  Kentucky,  and  was  very  popular,  especially  in  the 
South  and  with  the  friends  of  Mr.  Calhoun.  Mr.  Benton  and 
he  had  become  bitter  personal  and  political  enemies.  His  term 
in  the  Senate  was  about  to  expire  and  Mr.  Benton  was  his  most 
formidable  competitor.  The  result  of  the  contest  was  considered 
doubtful,  and  it  was  deemed  by  Mr.  Atchison's  friends  important 
to  strengthen  him  in  Missouri,  and  to  weaken  Mr.  Benton. 

"How  to  do  this  was  considered  in  'secret  session.'  It  is 
thought  that  only  three,  besides  Mr.  Atchison,  knew  in  the  early 
stages  the  programme  marked  out.  Subsequently  others  were  made 
acquainted  with  it.  The  originators  of  the  plan  fixed  upon  were 
Mr.  Atchison  and  three  other  able  and  distinguished  Southern 
Senators,  men  of  great  influence  in  the  whole  country,  and  espec 
ially  influential  in  the  South.  Only  one  of  these  four  men  is  now 
living,  and  it  is  due  to  him  and  those  now  at  rest  to  say  that  if 
they  could  have  foreseen  the  consequences  which  would  result 
from  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  we  believe  no  one 
of  them  would  ever  have  been  instrumental  in  causing  it.  Mr. 
Pierce  had  carried  for  his  election  all  the  States  of  the  Union, 
save  Massachusetts,  Vermont,  Kentucky,  and  Tennessee,  and  it 
was  believed  that  the  measure  to  repeal  the  Missouri  Compromise 
could  be  carried  and  cause  but  little  sensation  in  the  country. 
This  was  a  grave  error.  The  primary  object,  therefore  which  in 
duced  the  initiation  of  the  measure  to  repeal  the  Missouri  Com 
promise  was  to  secure  the  reelection  of  Mr.  Atchison  to  the  Sen 
ate.  The  means  to  be  employed  was  the  repeal  of  the  Compromise, 
in  order  that  the  people  of  Missouri  might  carry  their  slaves  to 
Kansas  and  there  raise  hemp. 

"The  author  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  was  not  Mr.  Doug 
las  but  Mr.  Atchison.  373 

"Early  in  the  session  of  1854,  Mr.  Douglas,  Chairman  of  the 
Committee  on  Territories,  introduced  a  bill  to  establish  a  territo- 


373  Xhe  italics  on  this  page  are  mine. 


THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA  BILL  273 

rial  government  in  Nebraska,  then  embracing  the  present  States  of 
Kansas,  Nebraska,  and  parts  of  Colorado,  and  the  Territories  of 
Wyoming  and  Dakota.  No  mention  was  made  in  it  of  Kansas. 
The  bill,  as  originally  introduced,  differed  but  little  from  kindred 
bills  which  had  been  passed  by  Congress.  Soon  after  the  intro 
duction  of  the  bill  Mr.  Dixon,  a  Whig  Senator  from  Kentucky, 
and  a  personal  friend  of  Mr.  Atchison,  gave  notice  in  the  Senate 
that  when  this  bill  should  come  up  he  would  offer  an  amendment 
to  repeal  the  Missouri  Compromise.  This  was  the  first  notice 
that  such  action  was  contemplated.  The  whole  country  was  taken 
by  surprise.  There  were  then  two  Democratic  papers  published 
in  Washington:  the  Union,  edited  by  O.  P.  Nicholson,  the  organ 
of  Mr.  Pierce's  administration,  and  the  Sentinel,  edited  by  the 
gifted  B.  Tucker.  Each  of  these  papers,  when  Mr.  Dixon  gave 
this  notice,  denounced  it  as  a  Whig  movement,  intended  to  be  a 
firebrand,  and  having  for  its  object  the  breaking  down  of  the 
Democratic  party.  The  files  of  these  papers  will  show  the  facts 
as  here  given.  It  is  certain  that  neither  of  these  editors  was  at 
the  time  in  the  secret. 

"Not  long  after  the  notice  given  by  Mr.  Dixon,  Mr.  Douglas 
moved  in  the  Senate  to  have  the  Nebraska  bill  recommitted,  which 
was  done.  Again,  a  little  later  he  reported  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill  for  establishing  two  territorial  governments.  But  before  this 
was  done  he  was  made  to  believe  that  it  would  be  a  very  popular 
movement  in  the  South  and  contribute  largely  to  his  nomination 
for  the  Presidency  in  1856.  It  is  doubtful  whether  he  ever  knew 
the  real  object  to  be  attained  by  the  repeal.  The  President  was 
also  consulted  and  was  impressed  with  the  idea  that  if  he  made  it 
an  administration  measure  it  would  give  him  additional  strength 
in  the  South,  and  greatly  help  him  to  a  renomination  in  1856. 
The  President  laid  the  subject  before  his  Cabinet,  then  composed 
of  Secretaries  Marcy,  Guthrie,  Jefterson  Davis,  Campbell,  Cush- 
ing,  Dobbin  and  McClelland,  and  all  consented  that  it  should 
be  made  an  administration  measure.  Mr.  Marcy,  who  consented 
reluctantly,  was  not  very  cordial  in  its  support."  374 

374  The  following  passage,  occurring  in  a  letter  from  the  late  Presi 
dent  George  W.  Atherton  of  the  Pennsylvania  State  College,  dated  August 
19,  1904,  is  of  some  interest,  in  connection  with  these  last  statements  of 


274  APPENDIX  D 

Then  follows  a  sketch  of  the  political  events  en 
suing,  including  a  brief  outline  of  the  Kansas  trou 
bles,  down  to  the  outbreak  of  the  War,  concluding 
with  this  summary: 

"This  sketch  has  been  written  at  the  request  of  friends  and 
to  supply  a  missing  link  in  the  history  of  the  past.  It  has  been 
written  in  no  sectional  spirit,  neither  to  wound  the  feelings  of  any 
now  living  nor  to  disturb  the  ashes  of  the  dead.  The  writer  has 
outlived  all  bitterness  and  unkind  feeling  toward  any  party  or 
person  on  earth. 

"From  these  facts,  as  herein  given,  the  following  conclusions 
are  warranted : 

"First:  —  That  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  was 
not  called  for  by  the  South  at  the  time  it  was  repealed,  the  bill 
being  offered  by  a  Northern  man  who  was  its  ostensible  author. 


Parker:  "With  regard  to  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  I  must 
confine  myself  to  the  briefest  possible  statement.  The  impression  which 
was  publicly  given  out  at  the  time  was  that  since  a  Northern  man  pro 
posed  the  repeal,  the  Southern  leaders  and  Southern  people  could  not  gra 
ciously  refuse  to  assent  to  it,  while  it  would  have  been  a  very  different 
thing  (said  they)  if  the  South  had  proposed  it.  The  fact  is  on  the  con 
trary,  that  the  South  proposed  and  insisted  on  it,  and  selected  Senator 
Douglas  as  their  fitting  instrument,  on  account  of  his  strength  in  the 
North,  and  they  counted  for  success  upon  his  well-known  ambition  to 
secure  the  vote  of  the  South  for  the  Presidency.  Douglas  refused  to  under 
take  the  matter  unless  it  should  be  made  an  iron-clad  'administration 
measure.'  The  President  for  a  long  time  resisted  the  importunities  of  the 
Southern  leaders,  but  was  able  at  length  to  secure  that  assurance  for  Doug 
las  and  he  then  undertook  the  work. 

"My  informant  as  to  the  above  was  the  Hon.  Charles  J.  Faulkner, 
who  was  then  in  Congress,  and  was  at  the  outbreak  of  the  Rebellion  our 
minister  to  France.  After  the  close  of  the  War,  he  was  a  member  of  the 
United  States  Senate  from  West  Virginia.  I  have  never  had  an  oppor 
tunity  to  follow  up  his  statements,  but  they  were  unequivocal  and  vigorous, 
and  my  own  recollection,  although  the  conversation  took  place  nearly  thir 
ty  years  ago,  cannot  be  at  fault."  Correspondence  with  Senator  Faulk 
ner's  son,  Hon.  Charles  J.  Faulkner,  Washington,  D.  C.,  has  failed  to  bring 
to  light  anything  of  value  in  this  connection.  "Judge  Price  always  told 
me  that  the  South  used  Douglas."  (Mr.  Wm.  E.  Connelley  in  a  state 
ment  to  the  author.)  See  Foote's  Casket  of  Reminiscences,  193. 


THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA  BILL  275 

"Second:  —  That  the  primary  object  of  the  Repeal  was  to 
politically  strengthen  one  man  and  to  weaken  another. 

"Third:  —  That  the  South  contended  for  a  principle  which 
had  it  been  established,  would  have  been  of  no  political  benefit  to 
it  or  to  the  cause  of  slavery :  I .  Because  slavery  could  never  have 
been  established  north  of  36°  30' ;  2.  Because  there  was  open  to 
slavery  south  of  36°  30',  in  Texas,  Louisiana,  Arkansas,  Missis 
sippi,  Florida  and  Alabama,  unoccupied  lands  sufficient  to  employ 
all  the  slaves  in  the  United  States,  and  their  increase  for  at  least 
one  hundred  years  to  come."  375 


375  It  must  be  admitted  that  the  value  of  Colonel  Parker's  testimony 
would  be  enhanced  very  materially  if  he  had  stated  precisely  the  position 
he  held  in  1854  which  enabled  him  to  "know  many  facts  and  incidents 
connected  with  this  bill  which  were  not  accessible  to  the  public,  or  even 
to  the  press  of  the  country,"  and  particularly  if  his  correspondence  sus 
taining  and  fully  verifying  every  statement  could  be  found. 

With  the  view  to  discover,  if  possible,  this  important  fact  in  Parker's 
career,  I  have  corresponded  with  a  large  number  of  individuals,  including 
Mrs.  R.  E.  Wynne,  daughter  of  Col.  Parker,  Wm.  G.  Stannard  of  the 
Virginia  Historical  Society,  John  S.  Wise,  Esq.,  John  Goode,  Esq.,  Hon. 
John  A.  Kasson,  Prof.  Wm.  E.  Dodd,  Judge  T.  R.  B.  Wright  of  Tappa- 
hannock,  Va.,  and  the  late  Hon.  A.  R.  Spofford.  Biographical  dictionaries 
and  Congressional  Directories  have  also  been  consulted  but  no  information 
has  been  obtained  more  definite  than  that  which  Parker  himself  gives.  I 
suspect  that  Parker  was  the  secretary  or  clerk  of  some  congressional  commit 
tee,  but  this,  of  course,  is  mere  conjecture  and  based  only  upon  the  fact  that 
Parker  was  secretary  of  the  Judiciary  Committee  of  the  House  the  year 
after  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  was  passed. 


APPENDIX  E 

Atchison' s  Claims  and  Douglas's  'Denials 

In  the  Introduction  it  was  stated  that  Senator 
Atchison  on  different  occasions  publicly  claimed  the 
credit  of  originating  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise  and  that  it  was  mainly  through  his  ef 
forts  that  Mr.  Douglas  was  induced  to  assume  charge 
of  the  measure  in  Congress.  The  first  of  these  oc 
casions  was  in  a  speech  delivered  at  Atchison  in  Kan 
sas  Territory,  a  few  months  after  the  passage  of  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill. 376  Of  this  speech  there  are 
two  contemporary  accounts.  The  earlier  of  them 
appeared  in  the  New  York  Tribune,  October  10, 
1854,  being  copied  into  that  paper  from  the  Park- 
ville  (Mo.)  Luminary  of  September  26,  where  it  was 
first  published  as  told  by  an  eye-witness.  The  later 
account  was  written  by  a  correspondent  of  the  Tri 
bune  in  May,  1855, 377  and  appeared  in  the  Tribune, 
on  the  fourth  of  June,  1855.  Since  the  later  account 
in  some  respects  logically  precedes  the  earlier,  it  will 
be  quoted  first. 

376  September  20,  1854. 

377  Dated    May   28,    1855.     The    author    of   this    letter   was   the   Rev. 
Frederick    Starr,   author   of  the  Letters   to   the  People   published   in    1853 
over  the  signature,  "Lynceus."     An  interesting  manuscript  letter  is  attached 
to  the  copy  of  this  pamphlet  in  the  Harvard  University  Library,  telling 
of  the  way  in  which  the  pamphlet  came  to  be  published  and  the  excite 
ment  which  it  caused  in  western  Missouri  at  the  time.     See  also  an  edito 
rial  in  the  Missouri  Republican,  December  30,  1853. 


ATCHISON  AND  DOUGLAS  277 

"St.   Louis,   Monday, 

"May  28,   1855- 

"Among  all  the  letters  in  the  Tribune  from  Kansas  and  its 
neighborhood,  I  do  not  recollect  anywhere  to  have  seen  the  true 
reason  stated  why  the  Parkville  Luminary  was  destroyed  and  its 
proprietors  presented  with  the  alternative  of  flight  or  violence. 378 
Let  me  briefly  disclose  it.  One  warm  day  last  summer  a  large 
crowd  had  assembled  at  the  town  site  of  Atchison  in  Kansas  to 
attend  a  sale  of  lots.  'Dave'  379  himself  was  there,  and  as  there 
was  much  whiskey  and  many  friends,  he  got  'glorious'  a  little 
earlier  in  the  day  than  usual.  So  with  much  spitting  on  his  shirt 
and  making  himself  more  nasty  than  common  the  Vice-President 
delivered  himself  something  after  this  wise: 

'  'Gentlemen,   you   make   a   d — d  fuss   about   Douglas,   but 
Douglas  don't  deserve  the  credit  of  this  Nebraska  bill.     I  told     ! 
Douglas  to  introduce  it.     I  originated  it.     I  got  Pierce  committed    ) 
to  it,  and  all  the  glory  belongs  to  me.     All  the  South  went  for  it,    I 
all  to  a  man  but  Bell  and  Houston,  and  who  are  they?     Mere    ' 
nobodies,  no  influence,  nobody  cares  for  them.' 

"It  happened  that  a  young  man  from  Parkville  was  present, 
a  friend  of  Atchison,  by  the  way.  When  he  came  home  he  was 
sounding  Atchison's  praises  and  repeating  what  he  had  said.  Pat 
terson  of  the  Luminary  got  him  to  write  down  the  exact  words 
of  the  Vice-President,  and  the  next  number  contained  a  verbatim 
report  of  portions  of  his  conversation.  By  this  time  some  of 
Dave's  friends  were  sober,  if  he  was  not.  There  was  trouble  in 
the  camp.  The  Platte  Argus,  the  Atchison  organ,  came  out  with 
a  flat  denial  of  the  language.  The  Parkville  young  man  replied 
over  his  own  initials,  that  he  heard  and  reported  the  words  exact 
ly  as  they  were  published,  and  whoever  should  deny  them  was  a 
liar,  intimating  his  readiness  to  maintain  the  same  against  all 
comers.  Meantime  a  chivalrous  nephew  of  John  Bell  residing 
in  St.  Louis  had  seen  the  report  of  Atchison's  language  in  the 
Luminary,  and  had  written  him  requiring  a  categorical  answer  to 


378  This  occurred  April  14,  1855.     A  different  cause  for  the  destruc 
tion  of  the  Luminary  is  given  in  Paxton's  Annals,  199. 

379  David  R.  Atchison. 


278  APPENDIX  E 

the  question  whether  he  had  used  the  language  imputed  to  him 
concerning  his  uncle.  The  tone  of  the  letter  was  strongly  sug 
gestive  of  'the  usual  satisfaction.'  Dave  evidently  thought  his 
three  hundred  pounds  of  flesh  too  good  a  mark  for  a  pistol  ball, 
and  he  accordingly  replied  to  the  nephew  that  he  had  the  most 
distinguished  consideration  for  his  uncle  and  never  said  such  a 
word  about  him,  if  he  had  said  anything  that  the  lying  scoun 
drels  had  tortured  into  what  they  published,  he  begged  that  it 
might  be  passed  by,  as  he  was  'in  liquor  at  the  time.''  And  thus 
the  Vice-President  escaped  the  vexation  of  personal  responsibility 
for  his  language.  Drunkenness  is  not  usually  regarded  as  a  valid 
plea  for  a  lawyer  to  make  in  behalf  of  a  client,  but  it  seems  very 
good  for  a  Vice-President. 

"But  the  mischief  was  done,  notwithstanding.  Douglas 
looked  glum  about  his  stolen  thunder.  Bell  and  Houston  were 
not  disposed  to  any  special  affability  toward  the  President  of  the 
Senate.  So  he  sent  his  resignation  and  stayed  away  two  or  three 
weeks  after  the  meeting  of  Congress.  38°  Judge  writh  what  bitter 
hatred  he  regarded  the  Luminary,  and  when  he  could  sway  the 
mob  power,  how  eagerly  he  employed  it  to  wreak  his  private 
vengeance.  Veritas." 

The  other  and  earlier  of  the  two  accounts  of  this 
speech  at  Atchison  is  as  follows : 

"Gen.  Atchison  mounted  an  old  \vagon  and  made  a  speech. 
He  commenced  by  alluding  to  the  beautiful  country  which  was 
now  beginning  to  be  settled,  to  some  of  the  circumstances  under 
which  a  territorial  government  was  organized,  and  in  the  course 
of  his  remarks  mentioned  how  Douglas  came  to  introduce  the 
Nebraska  bill  with  the  repeal  clause  in  it. 

"Senator  Atchison  said  that  for  himself,  he  is  entirely  devoted 
to  the  interests  of  the  South,  and  that  he  would  sacrifice  everything 
but  his  hope  of  heaven  to  advance  her  welfare.  He  thought  the 
Missouri  Compromise  ought  to  be  repealed,  he  had  pledged  him- 


380  Atchison  did  not  resign  in  so  many  words,  but  wrote  a  letter  from 
Platte  City,  Mo.,  November  n,  1854,  which  was  evidently  interpreted 
by  the  Senate  as  a  resignation.  At  any  rate  the  Senate  immediately  pro 
ceeded  to  elect  a  president  pro  tempore.  The  letter  is  printed  in  Cong. 
Globe,  xxx,  i. 


ATCHISON  AND  DOUGLAS  279 

self  in  his  public  addresses  to  vote  for  no  territorial  organization 
that  would  not  annul  it,  and  with  this  feeling  in  his  heart,  he 
desired  to  be  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Territories  when  the 
bill  was  to  be  introduced.  With  this  object  in  view,  he  had  a 
private  interview  with  Mr.  Douglas  and  informed  him  of  what  he 
desired,  the  introduction  of  a  bill  for  Nebraska  like  what  he  had 
promised  to  vote  /or,381  and  that  he  would  like  to  be  chairman 
of  the  Committee  on  Territories  in  order  to  introduce  such  a 
measure,  arid  if  he  could  get  that  position  he  would  immediately 
resign  as  Speaker  [sic]  of  the  Senate.  Judge  Douglas  requested 
twenty-four  hours  to  consider  the  matter,  and  said  if,  at  the  expi 
ration  of  that  time  he  could  not  introduce  such  a  bill  as  he  (Mr. 
Atchison)  proposed  which  would  at  the  same  time  accord  with  his 
own  sense  of  right  and  justice  to  the  South,  he  would  resign  as  the 
chairman  of  the  territorial  committee  in  Democratic  caucus,  and 
exert  his  influence  to  get  him  (Atchison)  appointed.  At  the  ex 
piration  of  the  given  time  Senator  Douglas  signified  his  intention 
to  report  such  a  bill  as  had  been  spoken  of.  382 

"Gen.  Atchison  next  spoke  of  those  who  had  supported  and 
those  who  had  opposed  the  bill  in  the  Senate,  and  remarked  that 
Northern  Democrats  came  up  nobly  to  the  work  but  that  North- 


381  The  italics  are  mine.     See  in  this  connection,   Holloway's  History 
of  Kansasy  97-98 ;  and  Spring's  Kansas,  24-25. 

382  The  speech  of  Atchison  on  this  occasion  is  quoted  by  Jehu  Baker 
in  his  speech  at  Belleville,  111.,  October  18,  1854.     The  speaker  added  this 
comment:     "He  [Atchison]  there  reveals  the  secret  history  of  the  repeal  of 

the  Missouri  Compromise Here  we  have  it.     Here  we  see   Mr. 

Douglas  taken  aback  by  the  proposal  of  Mr.  Atchison,  and  requiring  twen 
ty-four  hours  to  consider  whether  he  can  venture  to  make  this  leap !     How 
perfectly  irreconcilable  is  this  with  what  Mr.  Douglas  has  since  insisted 
upon  with  so   much  pertinacity  —  that  in  urging  the   repeal  of  the   Mis 
souri  Compromise  he  was,  like  a  good  patriot,  obeying  the  solemn  behests 
of   the   legislation   of    1850!     He   had   rested   under   that   solemn   patriotic 
obligation   for  three  years   without  knowing   it!     Senator   Atchison's   sug 
gestion  quickens  his  conscience,  and  after  twenty-four  hours'  reflection,  he 
is  enabled  to  hear  a  voice  as  it  were,  coming  forth  from  the  legislative 
scrolls  of  1850,  and  bidding  him,  in  the  name  of  liberty,  to  strike  down  the 
prohibition  of  slavery  in  Kansas  and  Nebraska!     Let  thoughtful  men  pon 
der  these  things   in  the   love  of  truth."  —  The   Weekly  Democratic  Press 
(Chicago),    November   n,    1854. 


280  APPENDIX  E 

ern  Whigs  had  proved  recreant  to  the  cause  of  justice  and  right. 
Southern  men,  he  said,  acted  as  they  should  have  done,  with,  he 
was  sorry  to  say,  two  exceptions.  (A  voice  in  the  crowd  here 
called  out,  'Bell  and  Houston.')  Yes,  he  said,  these  were  the 
men,  one  Whig  and  one  Democrat,  both  aspirants  for  the  Pres 
idency.  But  poor  miserable  devils,  they  had  made  a  false  step, 
and  he  might  say  now  he  (Atchison)  had  a  fairer  chance  for  that 
high  honor  than  either  of  them.  The  American  people  loved 
honesty  and  could  appreciate  the  acts  of  a  man  who  openly  and 
above  board  voted  according  to  the  will  of  his  constituents,  with 
out  regard  to  political  favor. 

"Senator  Atchison  next  alluded  to  the  slavery  question,  as  it 
is  now  being  agitated  in  our  community,  and  closed  by  expressing 
his  profound  contempt  for  abolitionists  and  their  machinations, 
and  said  that  if  he  had  his  way  he  would  hang  every  one  that 
dared  show  his  face  here.  In  referring,  however,  to  Northern 
men  settling  in  Kansas  Territory,  he  said  he  knew  there  were 
sensible,  honest,  right-feeling  men  among  them,  who  would  be  as 
far  from  stealing  a  negro,  as  a  Southern  man  would,  and  his  re 
marks  applied  only  to  avowed  abolitionists.  Such  is  a  glance  at 
some  of  the  points  in  Senator  Atchison's  speech." 

The  fact  that  these  assertions  of  authorship  were 
made  when  Senator  Atchison  was,  to  all  appearances, 
"under  the  influence  of  the  invisible  spirit  of 
wine"  383  has  caused  previous  writers  to  discount  their 
importance.  If,  however,  Mr.  Atchison  induced 
Mr.  Douglas  to  champion  the  Repeal,  the  latter  no 
doubt  insisted,  as  a  condition  precedent,  that  Atchison 
should  agree  not  to  claim  publicly  the  credit  of  orig 
inating  the  plan  of  Repeal.  Mr.  Douglas  would 
naturally  wish  to  receive  the  entire  public  credit  for 
the  affair  in  view  of  its  possible  effect  in  attracting  to 
himself  political  support.  It  would  also  be  a  part  of 
the  understanding  that  the  agreement  should  be  kept 


383  The  quoted  phrase  is  Mr.  Rhodes's. 


ATCHISON  AND  DOUGLAS  28 1 

secret:  otherwise  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  Douglas 
could  hope  to  profit  by  the  course  he  pursued.  Now 
it  is  a  common  occurrence  for  men  in  their  cups  to 
become  loquacious  and  to  publish  secrets  the  revela 
tion  of  which  often  leads  to  unpleasant  complications. 
No  one  thinks  of  rejecting  in  toto  statements  made 
under  such  circumstances.  The  fact  that  Mr.  Atchi- 
son  may  have  been  intoxicated  is  not  of  itself  suffi 
cient  to  brand  his  assertions  as  false. 

There  is  no  evidence  that  Senator  Atchison  was 
intoxicated  when  he  delivered  a  speech  at  Platte 
City,  Missouri,  in  February,  1856.  On  this  occasion 
he  made  a  much  more  guarded  declaration  of  his 
part  in  the  Repeal;  yet  the  declaration  by  no  means 
constitutes  any  denial  of  his  previous  claim.  In 
stead,  it  is  a  most  unequivocal  assertion  that  he  had 
not  only  been  ardently  in  favor  of  the  Repeal  but  also 
a  prominent  agent  in  accomplishing  it.  The  follow 
ing  passage  from  this  speech  is  pertinent: 384 

"I  now  wish  to  review  my  course  on  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill.  When  the  subject  was  first  introduced,  you  know  I  opposed 
it.  I  plainly  saw,  then,  all  the  difficulties  that  would  and  have 
attended  it.  I  told  you  then  that  it  would  be  of  no  benefit  to  you. 
I  told  you  it  would  be  injurious  to  the  commerce  of  the  frontier 
counties;  that  the  trade  would  go  West  with  increase  of  popula 
tion.  But  meetings  were  held,  resolutions  were  passed,  declaring 
it  was  your  wish  to  open  that  Territory,  and  I,  being  a  true  Dem 
ocrat  promised  to  go  for  it  on  one  condition,  and  that  was,  that 
the  Missouri  Compromise,  so-called,  —  the  Missouri  restriction, 
properly  called  —  be  repealed.  I  addressed  the  people  here  in 
this  court  house,  at  Parkville,  at  Westport,  in  fact,  all  over  the 
State,  and  told  them  that  //  the  Compromise  was  repealed,  I  would 


384  Quoted  in  the  N.  Y.  Times,  February  25,  1856.     See  also  Rev .  PoL 
Action,  74-75. 


282  APPENDIX  E 

go  for  a  bill  to  organize  the  Territory,  and  in  a  speech  at  Inde 
pendence,  I  told  the  people  that,  unless  that  restriction  was  re 
pealed,  I  would  see  them  damned  before  I  would  go  for  it.  That 
was  the  English  of  it.  Well,  it  was  done.  I  do  not  say  that  I 
did  it,  but  /  was  a  prominent  agent"  ^85 

A  little  more  than  two  months  after  Senator 
Atchison's  speech  at  Platte  City,  and  nineteen  months 
after  the  speech  at  Atchison,  Kansas,  Senator  Doug 
las  publicly  made  what  is  usually  interpreted  as  a 
complete  denial  of  the  truth  of  the  statements  refer 
ring  to  himself  contained  in  these  reports  of  Senator 
Atchison's  speech  in  Atchison,  Kansas. 

This  denial  occurred  in  the  course  of  a  debate  in 
the  Senate  upon  the  reception  of  the  Kansas  legisla 
tive  petition  in  April,  1856. 386  In  order  that  the  en 
tire  situation  may  be  before  the  reader,  the  remarks 
preceding  and  following  the  denial  of  Mr.  Douglas 
are  given  quite  fully. 

"MR.  WILSON  [of  Massachusetts]  :  But  that  bill  [the  Ne 
braska  bill  of  the  32d  Congress]  was  defeated.  David  R.  Atch 
ison,  a  man  eulogized  here  for  his  thousand  virtues,  went  home  to 
Missouri;  and  in  the  summer  of  1853  there  was  organized  in 
western  Missouri,  secret  lodges,  sworn  and  pledged  to  carry  slavery 
into  Kansas,  in  spite  of  that  prohibition  of  1820.  These  secret 
lodges  knew  that  the  time  had  come  to  settle  those  rich  lands  in 
Kansas  and  Nebraska,  and  they  resolved  to  plant  slavery  there. 
These  secret  societies  were  organized  under  the  leadership  of  the 
then  President  of  the  Senate,  the  man  who  has  been  and  who  is  this 
day  the  chieftain  of  the  Border  Ruffian  Democracy,  under  whom 
the  Senator  from  Illinois  and  the  chiefs  at  the  other  end  of  the 
avenue  are  mere  lieutenants. 

"General   Atchison   came   here   in   December,    1853.     If   we 


385  The  italics  are  mine. 

386  April  14,  1856.  —  Cong.  Globe,  ist  Sess.,  34th  Cong.,  Appendix,  390 
ff.     Mr.  Atchison  was  not  a  member  of  the  Senate  at  this  time. 


ATCHISON  AND  DOUGLAS  283 

can  rely  upon  his  own  statements,  made  to  a  public  meeting  in 
Atchison,  Kansas,  published  in  the  St.  Louis  papers,  and  never 
denied  by  him,  to  my  knowledge,  he  submitted  the  proposition  to 
the  Senator  from  Illinois,  to  bring  in  a  bill  to  repeal  the  Missouri 
Compromise,  or  allow  him  to  resign  the  Presidency  of  the  Senate 
and  take  the  chairmanship  of  the  Committee  on  Territories.  He 
boasted  in  Atchison,  Kansas,  that  he  was  the  leader  in  that  repeal  ; 
that  the  Senator  from  Illinois  took  time  to  consider  his  proposition, 
and  consented  to  bring  in  a  repealing  bill.  The  Senator  from 
Illinois  followed  the  lead  of  this  great  chieftain,  whom  the  Ad 
ministration  and  the  border  ruffians  alike  follow  today;  for  he  is 
their  guide,  their  leader  and  their  chieftain.  That  measure  was 
carried  through  Congress;  and  then,  before  any  man  from  New 
England  entered  Kansas,  it  was  resolved  by  members  of  the  Blue 
Lodges  of  Missouri,  that  they  should  be  removed  out  of  that 
Territory ,. 

"MR.  DOUGLAS.     The  Senator  from  Massachusetts  has  re 
ferred  to  that  stale  Abolition  libel  that  Senator  Atchison  said  he  / 
had  given  me  twenty-four  hours  to  say  whether  I   would  bring  \ 
in  the  Nebraska  bill,  or  resign  to  him  the  chairmanship  of  the  \ 
Committee  on  Territories.     That  is  a  vile  Abolition  libel.     Gen.  / 
Atchison  has  on  more  than  one  occasion  denounced  it  as  a  libel.     I 
thus  brand  it  here  as  being  without  the  shadow  of  a  truth.     You 
know,  Mr.  President  [referring  to  Mr.  Bright  of  Indiana  in  the 
Chair],  that  that  bill  was  prepared  before  any  Southern  man  was 
consulted]  and  that  you,  together  zuith  another  northivestern  Sena 
tor,  were  the  first  who  were  consulted  on  the  subject.      Then,  af 
ter  you  had  endorsed  it,  as  I  take  pleasure  in  saying  that  you  did, 
promptly  and  fearlessly,  we  consulted  our  Southern  friends.  387     I 
trust,  therefore,  that  I  have  put  an  end  to  that  foul  slander,  in 
vented  for  partisan  and  malicious  purposes,  and  which  has  been 
repeated  so  often,  and  so  widespread  over  the  whole  country. 

"The  Senator  from  Georgia  [Mr.  Toombs]  has  been  repre 
sented  as  being  the  author  of  the  bill,  and  the  man  who  dragooned 
me  into  bringing  forward  that  bill.  The  New  York  Evening 
Post,  which  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts  quotes  with  so  much 


387  The  italics  are  mine. 


284  APPENDIX  E 

admiration,  has  said  a  hundred  times  that  'Mr.  Toombs  of  Geor 
gia,  was  the  man  that  stood  over  Mr.  Douglas,  and  forced  him 
to  bring  it  in,'  when  the  Senator  from  Georgia  knows  that,  up  to 
that  time,  he  had  never  planted  his  foot  in  the  Senate,  and  he  did 
not  arrive  in  the  City  until  after  the  bill  was  prepared  and  intro 
duced. 

"MR.  TOOMBS.     That  is  true. 

"MR.  DOUGLAS.  He  was  not  here,  and  never  set  eyes  on  me 
nor  I  on  him,  nor  exchanged  a  word  with  me,  directly  or  indi 
rectly,  until  the  thing  was  done,  and  he  came  here  to  engage  in 
fighting  the  great  battle.  So  it  is  with  these  other  things.  I  have 
failed  to  notice  them  before,  for  the  reason  that  I  had  such  a  con 
tempt  for  this  system  of  making  side-issues.  Heretofore  I  have 
not  noticed  such  charges;  but  when  they  are  thrust  in  my  face  in 
the  Senate,  I  feel  it  to  be  my  duty  to  repel  them,  on  the  supposi 
tion  that  they  have  acquired  dignity  enough  by  being  repeated  here 
to  justify  me  in  noticing  them.  I  am  not  in  the  habit  of  noticing 
the  many  misrepresentations  and  assaults  which  are  made  on  me. 
I  am  willing  to  trust  my  character  and  reputation  on  the  result  of 
the  great  principles  involved,  and  upon  the  judgment  that  shall  be 
pronounced  on  them  when  passion  shall  have  passed  away,  and  the 
sober  reason  of  the  country  shall  have  returned. 

"MR.  WILSON.  Mr.  President,  a  few  words  in  reply  to  the 
Senator  from  Illinois.  He  closes  his  remarks  by  assuring  the  Sen 
ate  that  General  Atchison  never  made  the  declaration  attributed 
to  him.  That  Atchison  did  make  a  speech  at  the  town  of  Atchi 
son,  Kansas,  in  which  he  claimed  in  substance  to  be  the  author  of 
the  proposition  for  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  I  do 
not  entertain  a  doubt.  I  have  conversed  with  gentlemen  whose 
veracity  I  cannot  question,  who  heard  his  speech  on  that  occasion, 
and  these  gentlemen  assure  me  that  the  published  accounts  of  his 
speech  are  substantially  correct.  387  The  Parkville  Luminary,  pub 
lished  at  that  time  in  Missouri,  stated  that  Atchison  mounted  an 
old  wagon  and  made  a  speech.  [Here  follows  the  substance  of 

the  account  as  quoted  above  from  the  New  York  Tribune~\ 

The  precise  and  exact  words  used  in  regard  to  the  Senator  from 
Illinois  may  not  be  as  represented;  but  that  Atchison  claimed  that 


ATCHISON  AND  DOUGLAS  285 

honor,  and  claims  it  still,  is  well  known  by  hundreds  and  thousands 
of  men  in  the  country.  387 

"MR.  RUSK  (of  Texas).  Will  the  Senator  allow  me  to  cor 
rect  him  in  one  declaration? 

"MR.  WILSON.     Yes,  Sir,  most  cheerfully. 

"MR.  RUSK.  The  Senator  has  made  a  declaration  in  regard 
to  my  colleague,  which,  in  his  absence,  I  desire  to  correct.  He 
says  that  Gen.  Atchison  made  a  speech,  in  which  he  denounced 
my  colleague.  That  is  a  mistake.  There  was  a  false  or  erroneous 
report  in  a  newspaper  purporting  to  be  what  Gen.  Atchison  had 
said,  that  did  reflect  on  my  colleague,  and  the  Senator  from  Ten 
nessee.  General  Atchison  as  soon  as  he  saw  the  erroneous  report 
of  his  speech,  wrote  a  letter  promptly  correcting  it,  and  stating 
what  he  did  say,  in  which  there  was  no  denunciation  of  the  Sen 
ator  from  Tennessee  (Mr.  Bell)  or  of  my  colleague.  I  have 
known  Gen.  Atchison  for  a  long  time,  and  I  am  sure  he  would 
not  state  what  was  not  true.  He  told  me  that  he  had  made  no 
such  charges  against  them;  he  had  previously  sent  me  a  paper  con 
taining  the  correction  of  the  errors  in  the  false  report  of  his 
speech,  made  by  some  one,  no  doubt,  for  the  purpose  of  raising 
mischief " 

Here  are  two  apparently  contradictory  state 
ments  regarding  the  authorship  of  the  Repeal;  but 
the  contradiction  is  more  apparent  than  real. 

Senator  Douglas  was  an  adept  in  all  the  wiles 
and  arts  of  the  stump  speaker,  the  rough  and  ready 
debater,  and  when  he  felt  himself  getting  into  deep 
water  he  did  not  hesitate  to  resort  to  quibbles.  It  is 
not  impossible  or  difficult  to  regard  this  whole  denial 
as  partly  a  quibble  and  partly  an  evasion,  and  cer 
tainly  if  there  was  any  truth  in  Atchison's  claim  to 
authorship,  there  was  a  sufficient  motive  to  induce 
Douglas  to  resort  to  this  sort  of  tactics. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  in  his 

387  The   italics    are   mine. 


286  APPENDIX  E 

denial  Douglas  stigmatizes  as  a  "stale  abolition  li 
bel"  not  the  entire  story  rehearsed  by  Senator  Wil 
son,  but  merely  that  portion  of  the  story  which  refers 
to  Atchison's  peremptory  demand  and  allowance  of 
twenty-four  hours.  It  is  very  improbable  that  Atch- 
ison  presented  the  idea  of  the  Repeal  to  Douglas  in 
any  such  imperious  and  untactful  manner.  It  is  to 
tally  discordant  with  what  we  know  of  Atchison's 
tactics  as  a  politician.  Douglas's  denial  in  this  par 
ticular  goes  merely  to  the  form  of  Atchison's  claim 
and  leaves  the  substance  wholly  unchallenged. 

In  the  second  place  it  is  not  impossible  to  re 
gard  Douglas's  use  of  the  word  "Southern"  as  a  quib 
ble,  when  he  declared  that  the  bill  was  prepared 
"before  any  Southern  man  was  consulted."  It  is 
safe  to  say  that  Missouri  was  spoken  of  as  a  south 
ern,  State  and  her  Senators  referred  to  as  southern 
Senators  in  Congressional  debates  only  when  the  sub 
ject  of  slavery  was  under  discussion.  In  all  other 
connections,  Missouri  was  regarded  and  mentioned 
as  a  western  State.  Atchison  himself  spoke  of  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill  as  a  "western  measure,"  and 
as  such  it  was  expected  that  Missouri  would  profit  by 
it.  He  even  spoke  of  Missouri  as  a  "Northwestern" 
State. 388  Benton  was  constantly  referring  to  Mis 
souri  as  a  western  State.  It  may  be  that  Douglas 
purposely  used  the  word  "Southern"  with  the  mental 
reservation  that  he  would  call  Missouri  a  western 
State.  If  so,  then  there  was  no  real  denial  of  Atch 
ison's  claim,  although  the  effect  of  a  denial  was  pro 
duced  and  intended,  especially  in  the  minds  of  free- 

388  Cong.  Globe,  xxxi,  301. 


ATCHISON  AND  DOUGLAS  287 

soil  Senators  who  probably  thought  of  Missouri  more 
often  as  a  southern  than  a  western  State. 389 

Another  trick  of  the  wily  debater  is  to  get  off 
from  dangerous  and  on  to  firm  ground  as  quickly  as 
possible.  One  cannot  fail  to  be  impressed  with  the 
quickness  with  which  Douglas  passes  from  all  direct 
reference  to  the  Atchison  story,  a  matter  of  the  most 
serious  importance  to  him,  and  therefore,  if  worth 
noticing  at  all,  demanding  a  more  complete  refuta 
tion  than  he  gave  it,  to  a  point  wholly  unconnected 
with  anything  that  Senator  Wilson  had  said,  namely, 
to  the  allegation  that  Senator  Toombs  of  Georgia, 
who  was  then  present  in  the  Senate,  had  "dragooned" 
him  into  bringing  forward  this  bill.  Upon  a  denial 
of  this  interference  or  intervention,  Douglas  could 
take  stand  and  feel  the  ground  firm  beneath  him,  and 

389  Furthermore,  Douglas  may  have  stated  the  literal  truth  when  he 
said  that  the  bill  was  prepared  before  any  Southern  man  was  "consulted" 
The  primary  meaning  of  the  word  consult  is  "to  apply  to  for  direction  or 
information,  ask  the  advice  of."  (Standard  Dictionary.)  Now  if  Douglas 
used  the  word  consult  consciously  in  its  primary  sense,  his  statement 
probably  was  literally  true,  and  produced,  as  he  intended  it  should  pro 
duce,  the  effect  of  a  denial  of  the  Atchison  story,  whereas  in  fact  it  may 
have  been  no  contradiction  at  all.  There  is  little  probability  that  Douglas 
did  apply  to  Atchison  for  direction  or  information  or  advice  before  the 
bill  was  drafted,  but  that  does  not  preclude  the  possibility  and  probability 
that  Atchison  first  sought  out  Douglas  and  suggested  that  he  introduce  the 
repealing  measure. 

Similarly,  I  regard  Douglas's  declaration  of  February  23,  1855,  that 
the  bill  "was  written  by  myself,  at  my  own  house,  with  no  man  present," 
as  a  quibble.  (Cong.  Globe,  xxxi,  216.)  Stenographers  and  private  secre 
taries  were  not  common  in  those  days,  and  Douglas  may  have  done  the 
clerical  work  himself.  Douglas  said  nothing  at  that  time  which  directly 
contradicts  the  Atchison  story.  Mrs.  Stowe's  account  of  her  impressions  of 
Mr.  Douglas  as  a  debater,  written  a  few  days  after  the  denial  of  April  14, 
1856,  is  interesting  in  this  connection  and  tends  to  support  my  interpreta 
tion  of  these  denials.  Mrs.  Stowe's  impressions  appeared  in  the  New  York 
Independent,  May  i,  1856.  Summarized  in  Rhodes's  Hist,  of  U.  S.,  ii,  128. 


288  APPENDIX  E 

at  the  same  time  detract  attention  from  the  real  and 
most  serious  claim  to  authorship  of  the  Repeal.  39° 


390  Before  we  leave  Atchison's  direct  assertions  of  authorship,  the  fol 
lowing  may  be  noted.  In  an  Illustrated  History  of  Missouri  (St.  Louis  and 
Cincinnati,  1876),  466,  of  which  Walter  B.  Davis  and  Daniel  S.  Durrie 
were  the  authors,  is  found  the  following  statement  in  the  course  of  a  brief 
biographical  sketch  of  Senator  Atchison: 

"Mr.  Atchison  became  specially  prominent  in  the  legislation  for  the 
organization  of  the  Territories  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  and  claims  to  have 
originated  the  clause  in  the  bill  repealing  the  Missouri  Compromise " 

In  a  History  of  Kansas  (Lafayette,  Ind.,  1868)  by  John  N.  Holloway 
is  to  be  found  a  brief  but  circumstantial  account  of  the  interest  felt  by  the 
people  of  western  Missouri  in  the  repeal  of  the  Compromise  and  an  ac 
count  of  Atchison's  activity  in  the  matter. 


APPENDIX  F 

SELECTED  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

I.      MANUSCRIPT  MATERIALS 

Very  little  material  for  this  book  has  been  drawn 
from  manuscript  sources.  I  have  made  no  small  ef 
fort  to  discover  such  material  and  my  efforts  have 
been  efficiently  supplemented  by  those  of  Professor 
Charles  H.  Hull  of  Cornell  University.  The  results 
of  our  combined  efforts  have  been  almost  wholly 
negative.  But  even  such  results  are  not  without  some 
value  and  perhaps  should  be  summarized  here. 

I  have  had  access  to  the  Garrison  papers  in  the 
Boston  Public  Library,  to  the  Sumner  papers  in  the 
Library  of  Harvard  University;  and  to  the  papers 
of  President  Pierce,  until  recently  in  the  possession  of 
his  nephew,  Hon.  Kirk  D.  Pierce  of  Hillsboro,  N.  H., 
since  transferred  to  the  Library  of  Congress.  Such 
of  the  Pierce  papers  as  are  of  historical  value  have 
been  printed  in  the  American  Historical  Review.  In 
none  of  these  collections  was  any  material  found 
bearing  upon  the  origin  of  the  Repeal.  Access  has 
also  been  had  to  the  Chase  Correspondence  in  the  Li 
brary  of  Congress,  since  published  by  the  American 
Historical  Association;  but  very  little  was  found  of 
value  in  this  investigation.  The  same  is  true  of  the 
papers  of  Colonel  John  A.  Parker  of  Virginia. 

An  extensive  correspondence  has  failed  to  bring 


290  APPENDIX  F 

to  light  any  unpublished  papers  of  Senator  Douglas, 
Senator  Bright  of  Indiana,  Senator  Hunter  of  Vir 
ginia,  Senator  Dodge  of  Iowa,  Senator  Geyer  of  Mis 
souri,  Colonel  Benton,  James  S.  Green  of  Missouri, 
and  Senator  Atchison.  Regarding  the  papers  of 
Senator  Atchison,  it  is  stated  in  The  History 
of  Clinton  County,  Missouri  (St.  Joseph,  Mo., 
1881)  that  Senator  Atchison's  "valuable  library 
and  collection  of  manuscripts"  was  totally  de 
stroyed  by  the  fire,  February  2,  1870,  which  de 
stroyed  his  residence.  "The  General  in  speaking  of 
his  loss,  seemed  less  to  regret  the  loss  of  his  spacious 
mansion  than  the  burning  of  his  extensive  library  and 
valuable  records  of  his  opinions  and  observations 
during  the  long  period  of  his  service  in  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States."  (Pt.  ii,  182.) 

Mr.  William  E.  Connelley  of  Topeka,  Kansas, 
an  acknowledged  authority  on  early  Kansas  history, 
informs  me  that  "Atchison  wrote  a  history  of  the  Re 
peal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  and  the  Troubles 
in  Kansas.  He  wrote  it  after  he  returned  from  Tex 
as,  where  he  was  during  the  Civil  War.  This  work, 
in  manuscript,  was  destroyed  by  the  accidental  burn 
ing  of  the  residence  of  General  Atchison  shortly  be 
fore  his  death." 

Papers  of  Governor  Trusten  Polk  and  Francis 
P.  Blair,  Jr.,  both  of  Missouri,  are  known  to  be  in 
existence;  but  I  have  been  unable  to  ascertain  the 
nature  of  their  contents. 

II.      GENERAL    HISTORIES 

BURGESS,  J.  W.     The  Middle  Period,  1817-1858.     New  York, 
1897- 


SELECTED  BIBLIOGRAPHY  291 

HOLST,  H.  E.  VON.  Constitutional  and  Political  History  of  the 
United  States.  Translated  by  John  J.  Lalor,  and  others.  8 
vols.  Chicago,  1877-92. 

RHODES,  J.  F.  History  of  the  United  States  from  the  Com 
promise  of  1850.  7  vols.  New  York,  1893-1906. 

SCHOULER,  JAMES.  History  of  the  United  States  of  America 
under  the  Constitution.  6  vols.  Revised  edition,  New  York, 
1899- 

SMITH,  THEODORE  C.  Parties  and  Slavery,  1850-1859.  New 
York,  1906. 

WILSON,  HENRY.  History  of  the  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave 
Power  in  America.  3  vols.  Boston,  1872-77. 

WILSON,  WOODROW.     Division  and  Reunion.     New  York,  1901. 

.  A  History  of  the  American  People.  5  vols.  New 

York,  1902. 

III.      STATE  AND  LOCAL  HISTORIES 

CARR,  LUCIEN.     Missouri,  a  Bone  of  Contention.     Boston,  1888. 

The  best  history  of  Missouri.     The  treatment,  however,  of  Missouri 

politics  between  1844  and  1854  is  too  summary  to  be  of  the  greatest 

value.     Chapters    10    and    n    on    the    annexation    of    Texas    and    the 

Jackson  Resolutions  are  the  most  useful. 

CLAY  AND  PLATTE  COUNTIES,  MISSOURI;  History  of.  Anony 
mous.  St.  Louis,  1885. 

Gives    the    Jackson    Resolutions,    and    Benton's    "Appeal"    letter    of 
May  9,  1849.     Otherwise  of  no  value.  391 

DAVIS,  WALTER   B.   and   DANIEL   S.   DURRIE.     An   Illustrated 
History  of  Missouri.     St.  Louis  and  Cincinnati,  1876. 
Of  value  solely  for  the  brief  sketch  of  Senator  Atchison. 

GREENE  COUNTY,  MISSOURI;  History  of.  Anonymous.  St. 
Louis,  1883. 

Gives    the    Jackson   Resolutions,    and    a    brief    account   of   Benton's 
Springfield  speech.     Otherwise  of  little  value. 

GOODSPEED,  WESTON  A.  Editor-in-Chief.  The  Provinces  and 
the  States.  A  History  of  the  Province  of  Louisiana  under 
France,  and  Spain,  and  of  the  Territories  and  States  of  the 

391  For  the  purposes  of  this  work  is,  of  course,  to  be  understood  in  all 
these  comments. 


292  APPENDIX  F 

United    States    formed    therefrom.     7    vols.     Madison,    Wis., 
1904. 

Volume  4,  edited  by  C.  M.  Harvey,  deals  briefly  with  Missouri 
politics,  1844-1854. 

HOLLOWAY,  JOHN  N.  History  of  Kansas  from  the  First  Ex 
ploration  of  the  Mississippi  Valley  to  its  Admission  into  the 
Union.  Lafayette,  Ind.,  1868. 

Contains  a  little  contemporary  evidence  that  Senator  Atchison  was 
the  originator  of  the  Repeal,  and  describes  conditions  in  western  Mis 
souri  at  the  time  of  the  Repeal. 

MORTON,  J.  S.  The  Illustrated  History  of  Nebraska.  Lincoln, 
1905. 

H.  D.  Johnson's  claim  that  economic  considerations  determined  the 
creation  of  two  Territories  is  accepted  and  elaborated. 

PHILLIPS,  WILLIAM.  The  Conquest  of  Kansas  by  Missouri  and 
her  Allies.  Boston,  1856. 

Gives  interesting  sidelights  on  conditions  in  western  Missouri  and 
Kansas.  The  author  was  the  special  correspondent  of  the  New  York 
Tribune. 

PAXTON,  WILLIAM  M.  Annals  of  Platte  County,  Missouri. 
Kansas  City,  Mo.,  1897. 

Platte  County  lay  on  the  northwestern  border  of  the  State  and  was 
one  of  the  pro-slavery  strongholds.  The  great  diligence  of  the  author 
has  brought  together  in  this  volume  a  vast  amount  of  information  upon 
a  great  variety  of  subjects  of  local  interest. 

SPRING,  LEVERETT  W.     Kansas.     Boston,  1885. 

Excellent  on  the  later  history  of  Kansas,  but  quite  inadequate  in 
dealing  with  the  genesis  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill. 

SWITZLER,  W.  F.  and  others.  Switzler's  Illustrated  History  of 
Missouri.  St.  Louis,  1879. 

Colonel  Switzler's  knowledge  of  Missouri  history  was  encyclopedic. 
He  was  a  Whig,  and  active  in  politics  at  the  time  of  Benton's  "Ap 
peal."  His  work  contains  much  that  is  valuable  for  these  years  but 
on  the  campaign  of  1853  it  is  surprisingly  meager. 

VILES,  JONAS  S.  The  Story  of  the  State.  [In  a  volume  entitled 
The  State  of  Missouri:  An  Autobiography,  edited  by  Walter 
Williams].  Columbia,  Mo.,  1904. 

An  excellent,  though  necessarily  brief,  summary  of  the  political 
history  of  Missouri. 


SELECTED  BIBLIOGRAPHY  293 

IV.      BIOGRAPHIES 

BROWN,  WILLIAM  CARROT.  Stephen  Arnold  Douglas.  Boston, 
1892. 

A  very  brief  but  excellent  sketch  of  Douglas's  public  life. 
FLINT,  H.  M.     Life  of  Stephen  A.  Douglas.     By  a  Member  of 
the  Western  Bar.     New  York,  1860. 

A  campaign  biography  with  the  usual  infirmities  of  that  class  of 
works.  Of  very  little  value. 

HARDING,  S.  B.  Life  of  George  R.  Smith,  Founder  of  Sedalia, 
Missouri.  Sedalia,  Mo.,  1904. 

Gives  an  account  of  the  last  few  ballots  when  Geyer  was  elected 
to  succeed  Benton  in  the  Senate  in  1851,  found  in  a  letter  written  by 
a  member  of  the  Legislature. 

JOHNSON,  ALLEN.  Stephen  A.  Douglas:  A  Study  in  American 
Politics.  New  York,  1908. 

This  is  the  best  biography  of  Douglas,  and  in  most  respects  is  an  ad 
mirable  work.  The  discussion,  however,  of  Douglas's  connection  with 
the  Repeal  is  regrettably  inadequate.  Except  for  Douglas's  letter  of 
November  n,  1853,  to  Walker  and  Lanphier,  the  work  contributes 
very  little  to  our  knowledge  of  this  important  episode  in  Douglas's 
career. 

MEIGS,  W.  M.  Life  of  Thomas  Hart  Benton.  Philadelphia, 
1904. 

The    best   biography    of   Benton.     Contains    much    valuable    matter 
relating  to  Benton's  retirement  from  the  Senate. 
ROOSEVELT,  THEODORE.     Thomas  Hart  Benton.     Boston,   1887. 

Of  very  slight  value. 
ROGERS,  JOSEPH  M.     Thomas  H.  Benton.     Philadelphia. 

A  very  readable  biography.  Of  more  value  as  a  character  sketch 
than  as  a  contribution  to  political  history. 

SHEAHAN,  J.  W.     Life  of  Stephen  A.  Douglas.  New  York,  1860. 
Another  campaign  biography  of  very  little  value. 

V.      PUBLICATIONS  OF  HISTORICAL  SOCIETIES 

ABEL,  Miss  A.  H.  Indian  Reservations  in  Kansas  and  the  Ex 
tinguishment  of  their  Title.  In  Kansas  Historical  Society's 
Transactions,  viii.  (1903-04). 

Of  value  in  connection  with  the  Benton-Atchison  controversy  over 
the  legality  of  immediate  settlement  in  Nebraska  Territory. 


294  APPENDIX  F 

AMERICAN  HISTORICAL  ASSOCIATION;  Annual  Report.  1899, 
1902,  1906. 

Vol.  ii  (1899),  containing  the  Correspondence  of  John  C.  Calhoun, 
contains  a  few  important  letters  referring  to  Missouri  politics  in  1849. 
Vol.  ii  (1902),  the  Correspondence  of  Salmon  P.  Chase,  contains  a  few 
allusions  to  Missouri  politics.  Vol.  i  (1906),  contains  Miss  Abel's 
Winsor  Prize  Essay,  "The  History  of  Indian  Consolidation  West  of 
the  Mississippi." 

CALHOUN,  JOHN  C.  Correspondence  of.  In  the  American  His 
torical  Association's  Report  for  1899,  Vol.  ii. 

CONNELLEY,  WILLIAM  E.  The  First  Provisional  Constitution 
of  Kansas.  In  Kansas  Historical  Society's  Transactions,  vi. 
1897-1900. 

An  earlier  study  afterwards  elaborated  into  the  author's  Provisional 
Government  of  Nebraska. 

.  Provisional  Government  of  Nebraska  and  the  Jour 
nal   of   William   Walker,    Provisional    Governor   of    Nebraska 
Territory.     Special   Publication  of  the  Nebraska  State  Histor 
ical  Society's  Transactions  and  Reports,  Series  II,  Vol.  iii.     1899. 
A  most  important  source   for  facts   and  documents   relating  to  the 
Wyandott  connection  with  the  Nebraska  territorial  movement. 

HASKELL,  J.  G.  The  Passing  of  Slavery  in  Western  Missouri. 
In  Kansas  Historical  Society's  Transactions,  vii.  1901-02. 

Throws  some  light  on  slavery  in  western  Missouri  in  the  period 
covered  by  this  investigation. 

HINTON,  R.  J.  The  Nationalization  of  Freedom  and  the  His 
torical  Place  of  Kansas  therein.  In  Kansas  Historical  Society's 
Transactions,  vi.  1897-1900. 

JOHNSON,  HADLEY  D.  How  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Boundary 
Line  was  Established.  In  Nebraska  State  Historical  Society's 
Transactions  and  Reports,  ii.  1887. 

An  important  contribution  indicating  that  economic  considerations 
rather  than  slavery  interests  determined  the  organization  of  two  Terri 
tories  in  1854. 

KANSAS  STATE  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY;  Transactions  of.  Vol.  vi 
(1897-1900),  vol.  vii  (1901-02),  vol.  viii  (1903-04),  vol.  ix 
(1905-06). 

MERWIN,  R.  E.  History  of  the  Wyandott  Indians.  In  Kansas 
Historical  Society's  Transactions,  ix.  1905-06. 


SELECTED  BIBLIOGRAPHY  295 

MISSOURI  STATE  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY;  Proceedings  of.     1903. 

Short  sketches  of  Benton  and  Blair  occur  in  this  volume. 

NEBRASKA  STATE  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY;  Transactions  and  Reports 

of.     Vol.  ii.     1887. 

TAFT,  WILLIAM  H.     The  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill  and  Decoration 

Day.    In  Kansas  Historical  Society's  Transactions,  ix.    1905-06. 

A    Memorial    Day    address,    to    which    are    appended    footnotes    by 

George  W.   Martin.     The  footnotes   include  excerpts   from   a   number 

of  newspapers,    1853-56,   which   are  of  value   for  their  bearing  upon 

Atchison's  connection  with  the  Repeal. 

VI.      STATE  AND  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT  PUBLICATIONS 
CONGRESSIONAL   DIRECTORY,     soth    Congress    (1847-49),    3ist 

Congress    (1849-51),  32d  Congress    (1851-53),  33^  Congress 

(1853-55). 
CONGRESSIONAL  GLOBE. 

Second  session,  28th  Congress  (cited,  xiv). 

First  session,  3Oth  Congress  (cited,  xviii). 

Second  session,  3Oth  Congress  (cited,  xx). 

First  session,  3ist  Congress  (cited  xxi). 

Second  session,  3ist  Congress  (cited,  xxiii). 

First  session,  32d  Congress   (cited  xxiv). 

Second  session,  32d  Congress  (cited,  xxvi,  xxvii). 

First  session,  33d  Congress   (cited,  xxviiif  xxix). 

Second  session,  33d  Congress  (cited,  xxxi). 

First  session,  34th  Congress. 
CONGRESSIONAL  RECORD.     3d  session,  55th  Congress,  vol.  xxxii, 

Pt.  iii.     Remarks  of  Hon.  Champ  Clark  on  Francis  P.  Blair, 

Jr.,   and   Remarks  of   Hon.   A.    M.    Dockery,    quoting  Judge 

James  H.  Birch,  a  contemporary  of  Benton. 
HOUSE  EXECUTIVE  DOCUMENTS: 

Second  session,  28th  Congress,  vol.  i. 

First  Session,  33d  Congress,  vol.  i,  no.  I. 
HOUSE  JOURNAL: 

First  session,  3Oth  Congress. 

First  session,  3ist  Congress. 

Second  session,  32d  Congress. 

First  session,  33d  Congress. 


296  APPENDIX  F 

First  session,  34th  Congress. 

HOUSE  REPORTS: 

First  session,  34th  Congress,  vol.  iii,  nos.  200,  257. 
Second  session,  37th  Congress,  no.  67. 

KANSAS  REPORT.  Report  of  the  Special  Committee  appointed  to 
investigate  the  Troubles  in  Kansas  with  the  Views  of  the 
Minority.  Washington,  1856.  House  Reports,  1st  session, 
34th  Congress,  vol.  iii,  no.  200. 

MANYPENNY,  COLONEL  GEORGE  W.  [Commissioner  of  Indian 
Affairs]  Report,  November  9,  1853,  of  his  visit  to  Indians  west 
of  Missouri  and  Iowa;  Report  of  November  26,  1853,  on  the 
general  subject  of  Indian  Relations.  House  Executive  Docu 
ments,  ist  session,  33d  Congress,  vol.  i,  no.  I. 

MISSOURI  ;  Laws  of  the  State  of.  Passed  at  the  First  Session  of 
the  Fourteenth  General  Assembly,  November  16,  i846-Feb- 
ruary  16,  1847. 

MISSOURI;  Laws  of  the  State  of.  Passed  at  the  Session  of  the 
Fifteenth  General  Assembly,  December  25,  i848-March  12, 
1849. 

MISSOURI  HOUSE  JOURNAL;  1846-47,  1848-49,  1850-51,  1852-53. 

MISSOURI  SENATE  JOURNAL  ;  1846-47,  1848-49,  1850-51,  1852-53. 

POORE,  BENJAMIN  PERLEY.  The  Federal  and  State  Constitu 
tions,  Colonial  Charters  and  other  Organic  Laws  of  the  United 
States.  Second  edition.  2  vols.  Washington,  1878. 

RICHARDSON,  J.  D.  Compilation  of  the  Messages  and  Papers  of 
the  Presidents  (1789-1897).  10  vols.  Washington,  1896-99. 

SENATE  JOURNAL: 

Second  session,  28th  Congress. 
First  session,  3Oth  Congress. 
First  session,  3ist  Congress. 
First  session,  32d  Congress. 
Second  session,  32d  Congress. 
First  session,  33d  Congress. 

SENATE  REPORTS;  ist  session,  33d  Congress,  vol.  i,  no.  15. 

WILKINS,  WILLIAM.  Report  of  Secretary  of  War,  November 
30,  1844.  House  Executive  Documents,  2d  session,  28th  Con 
gress,  vol.  i. 


SELECTED  BIBLIOGRAPHY  297 

VII.      PAMPHLETS 

A  STATEMENT  OF  FACTS  and  a  few  Suggestions  in  Review  of 
Political  Action  in  Missouri  demonstrating  the  Right  of  Ad 
mission  to  the  Democratic  National  Convention  of  the  Dele 
gates  of  the  Democratic  Party  of  the  State  whose  Names  are 
appended  hereto,  to  the  Exclusion  of  their  Contestants.  1856. 
[n.  p.] 

This  is  the  case  of  the  anti-Benton  faction  in  the  Missouri  Democ 
racy  before   the   Cincinnati   Convention,    1856,   protesting    against   the 
seating  of  the  Benton  delegation.     It  contains  a  good  deal  of  material 
bearing  upon  the  dissensions  in  Missouri  after  Benton's  "Appeal." 
BENTON,  THOMAS  H.     Speech  at  the  Capitol  at  Jefferson  City, 
May  26,  1849.     St.  Louis,  1849. 

This  and  the  speech  at  Fayette  are  among  the  best  examples  of 
Benton's  peculiar  style  of  stump  speaking. 

.  Speech  at  Fayette,  Howard  County,  Missouri,  on  Satur 
day,  September  I,  1849.     Jefferson  City,  Mo.,  1849. 
BOWLIN,   JAMES   B.     Circular   to   his   Constituents,    the   Voters 
of  the  First  Congressional  District,  in  Missouri.     Washington, 
D.  C.,  1850. 

Illustrates  the  confusion  wrought  in  Missouri  politics  by  Benton's 
"Appeal." 

DOUGLAS,  STEPHEN  A.  Remarks  by  Mr.  Douglas  of  Illinois 
upon  the  Resolutions  declaring  the  Compromise  Measures  to  be 
a  Definitive  Adjustment  of  all  Questions  growing  out  of  Do 
mestic  Slavery.  Delivered  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States, 
December  23,  1851.  Washington,  1851. 

.  Speech  of  Senator  Douglas  at  a  Public  Dinner,  in  Chi 
cago,  November  9,  1854.     Washington,  1855. 
GREEN,  JAMES  S.  of  Missouri.     Letter  to  Messrs.  John  S.  Farish, 
John  W.  Minor,  Thomas  Roberts,  Wesley  Burks,  and  others, 
Citizens  of  Schuyler  County,  Missouri,      [n.  p.,  n.  d.] 

This  letter  constitutes  perhaps  the  ablest  reply  to  Benton's  "Appeal" 
and  Jefferson  City  speech.  It  is  a  clear  and  full  presentation  of  the 
case  of  the  Anti-Bentonites  in  1849. 

PARKER,  COL.  JOHN  A.  of  Virginia.  What  Led  to  the  War,  or 
the  Secret  History  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill,  with  an  Intro 
ductory  Note  by  Waldorf  H.  Phillips  of  New  York.  New 
York,  1880,  and  Washington,  1886. 


298  APPENDIX  F 

Reprinted  from  the  National  Quarterly  Review,  July,  1880.  An 
important  piece  of  corroborative  evidence  of  the  Missouri  origin  and 
Atchison  authorship  of  the  Repeal. 

STARR,  REV.  FREDERICK.  Letters  for  the  People  on  the  Present 
Crisis.  [Signed]  "Lynceus"  [pseud.].  [New  York,  1853.] 

This  pamphlet  reflects  the  views  of  a  northern  anti-slavery  clergy 
man,  residing  in  Missouri,  concerning  the  economic  and  political  con 
ditions  of  Missouri  as  affected  by  the  institution  of  slavery.  The 
letters  were  published  anonymously,  but  the  copy  in  the  Harvard 
University  Library  contains  a  manuscript  letter  revealing  the  identity 
of  the  author  and  relating  some  interesting  facts  about  the  indignation 
which  the  appearance  of  these  letters  caused  in  Missouri. 

VIII.      MISCELLANEOUS  BOOKS 

BENTON,  THOMAS  H.  Thirty  Years'  View,  1820-1850.  2  vols. 
New  York,  1854-56. 

Benton's  attack  upon  Calhoun  over  the  Texas  annexation  question 
is  to  be  found  here,  but  one  looks  in  vain  for  anything  bearing  upon 
his  retirement  from  the  Senate  or  struggle  for  restoration.  On  the 
whole  it  is  of  very  slight  value. 

CUTTS,  JAMES  M.  A  Brief  Treatise  upon  Constitutional  and 
Party  Questions  and  the  History  of  Political  Parties.  New 
York,  1866. 

Of  almost  no  value. 

DIXON,  MRS.  ARCHIBALD.  The  True  History  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise  and  its  Repeal.  Cincinnati,  1899. 

Far  from  being  a  "true"  history  of  the  Repeal,  it  is  incomplete, 
biased  and  in  other  respects  unreliable.  Of  interest  mainly  for  the 
part  taken  by  Senator  Dixon  in  the  Repeal. 

IX.      CONTRIBUTIONS  TO  PERIODICALS 

FAGG,  J.  C.     Thomas  Hart  Benton :     The  Great  Missourian  and 

his  Times  reviewed.     Missouri  Historical  Review,  I  (Oct.). 
HARVEY,  CHARLES  M.     Missouri  from  1849  to  1861.     Missouri 
Historical  Review,  II  (Oct.). 

Comments  briefly  upon  Missouri  politics,  1849-54. 
JOHNSON,  ALLEN.     Douglas   and   Popular   Sovereignty.       Iowa 

Journal  of  History  and  Politics,  Jan.  and  July,  1905. 
WEBSTER,  SYDNEY.     The  Responsibility  for  Secession.     Political 
Science  Quarterly,  VIII. 


SELECTED  BIBLIOGRAPHY  299 

The  writer,  who  was  the  private  secretary  of  President  Pierce, 
contends  that  the  Repeal  was  wholly  legislative  in  its  origin,  and 
endeavors  to  free  the  Executive  from  responsibility. 

X.      NEWSPAPERS 

ALBANY  [N.  Y.]  ARGUS,  1853-1854. 

BALTIMORE  [Md.]  SUN,  1853-1854. 

BOSTON  [Mass.]  ATLAS,  1853. 

BOSTON  [Mass.]  JOURNAL,  1853. 

CHARLESTON  [S.  C.]  COURIER,  1853-1854. 

CINCINNATI  [Ohio]  INQUIRER,  1854. 

INDEPENDENT,  THE  [New  York],  1856. 

IOWA  REPUBLICAN  [Iowa  City],  1853. 

IOWA  STATE  GAZETTE  [Burlington],  1853. 

JEFFERSON  [Mo.]  EXAMINER,  1853. 

JEFFERSON  [Mo.]  INQUIRER,  1853. 

MISSISSIPPIAN  AND  STATE  GAZETTE  [Jackson,  Miss.],  iS53-i"854. 

MISSOURI  REPUBLICAN    [St.  Louis],  1853-1854. 

MISSOURI  SENTINEL  [Columbia],  1853. 

NATIONAL  INTELLIGENCER  [Washington,  D.  C.],  1853-1854. 

NEW  YORK  [N.  Y.]  EVENING  POST,  1853. 

NEW  YORK  [N.  Y.]  HERALD,  1853-1854. 

NEW  YORK  [N.  Y.]  JOURNAL  OF  COMMERCE,  1853-1854. 

NEW  YORK  [N.  Y.]  TIMES,  1856. 

NEW  YORK  [N.  Y.]  TRIBUNE,  1853-1854. 

NILES'S   NATIONAL  REGISTER    [Baltimore,   Md.],  vols.   LXVI, 

LXVII  (1844-45),  LXXII  (1847),  LXXV  (1849). 
PLATTE  [City,  Mo.]  ARGUS,  THE  WEEKLY,  1852. 
RICHMOND  [Va.]  ENQUIRER,  1853-1854. 
ST.  Louis  [Mo.]  INTELLIGENCER,  1850. 
WASHINGTON  [D.  C.]  UNION,  1853-1854. 
WEEKLY  DEMOCRATIC  PRESS  [Chicago,  111.],  1854-1856. 
WESTERN  EAGLE  [Cape  Girardeau,  Mo.],  1849-1851. 

Newspapers  have  been  an  invaluable  source  in  the  preparation  of 
this  book.  The  Missouri  newspapers  and  the  Washington  correspondence 
of  the  great  eastern  papers  have  been  of  most  value. 


Index 


INDEX 


ADAMS,  SENATOR  STEPHEN:  94. 

Administration:  attitude  toward 
Benton,  79  note  100,  no,  in  note 
155;  toward  Repeal,  212,  213  ff, 
256  ff. 

Albany  Argus',  editorial  quoted,  191- 
193  and  interpretation  of,  by  N.  Y. 
Evening  Post,  192. 

Andrew  County  (Mo.)  :  Nebraska 
meeting  in,  164  ff. 

Anti-Benton:  faction  in  Missouri 
Democracy,  27,  30,  31,  34,  35,  36, 
38,  50,  64-65,  67,  71,  112;  press 
in  Missouri,  51  note  54,  in; 
resolutions,  38,  51  note  54,  64-65. 
See  also  Atchison,  Benton,  Cal- 
houn,  Douglas,  Green,  Jackson 
Resolutions,  Letters,  Missouri  Pol 
itics,  Missouri  Legislature,  and 
Price,  W.  C. 

Appeal:  Benton's,  to  the  People  of 
Missouri,  41  ff,  50;  effect  of,  58- 
59.  Of  the  Independent  Demo 
crats  in  Congress,  17.  See  also 
Atchison,  Benton,  Calhoun,  Green, 
Jackson  Resolutions,  Letters,  and 
Missouri  Politics. 

Appendix:  235  ff. 

Armstrong,  Rev.  J.  M. :  85  note  107, 
252. 

Atchison,  David  R. :  his  political  ex 
tremity  in  1854,  22,  131  ff,  141, 
202 ;  claims  credit  for  the  Repeal, 
22,  23,  233,  276  ff,  288  note  390; 
desires  chairmanship  of  Commit 


tee  on  Territories,  22,  201,  277  ff; 
interview  with  Douglas,  22,  201, 
204;  speech  at  Atchison  (Kansas), 
22,  276  ff;  speech  at  Platte  City 
(Mo.),  23,  79  note  100,  281;  the 
antithesis  of  Benton,  28,  217; 
reelection  contested  by  Benton,  28 ; 
position  on  Texas  question,  32  note 
27 ;  on  conspiracy  against  Ben- 
ton,  34  note  30;  position  on  slav 
ery  endorsed,  48  note  48 ;  position 
on  Wilmot  Proviso,  52  note  55, 
108,  113;  mentioned  in  Liberty 
resolutions,  51  note  54;  mentioned 
in  KlippePs  letter,  59 ;  speaks  in 
St.  Joseph  (Mo.),  59  note  66;  at 
titude  toward  Pacific  Railroad,  77 
ff,  260  note  357;  interest  in  Mis 
souri  railroads,  77;  speeches  at 
Weston,  Parkville  and  Fayette 
(Mo.),  74  note  91,  77,  79  note  100, 
123,  228,  255  ff,  257;  interviews 
with  Guthrie,  88,  135;  opposes 
Wyandott  territorial  movement, 
88 ;  presents  Missouri  memorial 
on  Nebraska,  97;  presents  Park 
ville  resolutions,  99;  on  Missouri's 
interest  in  Nebraska,  101,  102  ff, 
136;  attitude  toward  Missouri 
Compromise,  104,  108,  113,  135  ff, 
216  note  303 ;  change  of  attitude 
on  Nebraska  question,  102  ff,  112 
ff,  116,  133,  134  ff,  136;  charged 
with  inconsistency  by  Jefferson 
Inquirer,  112  ff,  133;  his  political 


304 


INDEX 


"stamping-ground,"  115;  his  anti- 
Benton  letter  of  1849,  quoted,  112; 
opinion  on  legality  of  "immediate" 
settlement,  119,  123  ff;  reply  to 
Benton's  Cole  &  Monroe  County 
letters,  123  ff;  comment  of  St. 
Louis  Evening  News,  123 ;  writes 
to  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  124; 
Manypenny's  letter,  126  ff;  views 
and  pledges  concerning  Slavery  in 
Nebraska,  23,  135  ff,  141,  170  note 
238,  198,  205,  221,  228,  255  ff,  281 ; 
relations  with  Manypenny,  156; 
letter  to  Missouri  Examiner,  156 
note  221 ;  speech  mentioned  by 
N.  Y.  Independent,  170  note  238; 
relations,  with  Douglas,  201-202, 
221,  277  ff  and  with  the  Pierce 
Administration,  212-214,  277  ff; 
inconspicuous  part  in  Kansas-Ne 
braska  debate,  215  ff  and  Clayton 
amendment,  215  ff ;  relation  of  the 
Repeal  to  his  contest  with  Benton, 
220  ff;  resolutions  of  Platte  City 
meeting,  226  note  319;  letter  re 
viewing  campaign  of  1853-54,  22^ 
ff,  253  ff;  the  author  of  the  Re 
peal,  229-230,  232,  272  ff;  resig 
nation  as  President  pro  tempore, 
278;  Henry  Wilson  comment  up 
on,  282  ff. 

Comments  on:  St.  Joseph  Ga 
zette,  139;  Jefferson  Inquirer,  140; 
Iowa  State  Gazette,  179 ;  Boston 
Atlas,  180;  N.  Y.  Evening  Post, 
181,  192;  N.  Y.  Journal  of  Com 
merce,  182;  Richmond  Enquirer, 
189,  198 ;  Missouri  Republican, 
199;  Baltimore  Sun,  204  ff,  221; 
Charleston  Courier,  205. 

Atchison  (Kans.) :  Atchison's  speech 
at,  22,  233,  277  ff. 

Atherton,     George     W.:     letter    of, 
quoted,  274  note  374. 


Authorship  of  the  Repeal:  228,  229, 
230,  233,  277  ff,  287. 

BADGER,  SENATOR  G.  E.:  218. 

Baker,  John:  speech  quoted,  280  note 
382. 

Baltimore  Platforms:  15,  65,  139, 
140. 

Baltimore  Sun:  quoted,  204  ff,  220. 

Barrett,  J.  Amos:  his  and  A.  E. 
Sheldon's  new  explanation  of 
Douglas's  motives,  19  note  8,  238 
ff. 

Bell,  Senator  John:  279,  281. 

Benjamin,  Senator  J.  P.:  34,  248, 
249. 

Bennett,  H.  P.:  177. 

Benton,  Thomas  H. :  the  antithesis 
of  Atchison,  28,  217;  retirement 
from  Senate,  28-29,  30  note  20, 
35 ;  desires  to  succeed  Atchison, 
28;  his  political  extremity  in  1854, 
28-29,  222  ff  >  hostility  to  Calhoun, 
27,  29,  39  ff,  42  ff,  47;  attitude 
of  Calhoun,  30-32,  43  ff;  last 
election  to  Senate,  33 ;  the  anti- 
Benton  party  in  Mo.,  33-34;  his 
political  absolutism,  34;  opposi 
tion  of  Judge  Price,  35,  248  ff; 
spurns  Repeal  proposal,  35,  248; 
assails  the  Jackson  resolutions,  39 
ff;  his  "Appeal  to  the  People  of 
Missouri,"  41 ;  his  canvass  of  the 
state,  1849,  48  ff,  49  note  49,  58; 
effect  of,  50;  his  position  on  Slav 
ery  assailed  by  Green,  53  ff;  his 
violent  language,  56,  57,  58,  68- 
69;  organizes  a  separate  faction, 
56  note  62 ;  lack  of  interest  in  In 
ternal  Improvements,  61  note  73 ; 
overconfident  in  campaign  of 
1850,  62;  letter  opposing  union 
with  Calhounites,  62-63 ;  attitude 
toward  Whigs,  63,  68,  69 ;  inter 
pretation  of  election  of  1850,  64 


INDEX 


305 


note  77;  effect  of  his  defeat,  66- 
67 ;    reorganizes    his    "bolt,"    67 ; 
opposes     factional     reconciliation, 
1852,    67;    denounces    State    Con 
vention,  68;   his  election  as  Rep 
resentative,  68-69;  letter  to  Boon- 
ville   Observer,   69  note  86;   pro 
ject  for  Central  Highway,   72  ff, 
76;  his  project  ridiculed  by  Atch- 
ison,  74  note  91 ;  Cole  County  let 
ter,  76,  116  ff,  255;  misrepresents 
Atchison,  77,  79  ff,  135;  relations 
with   Pierce's   Administration,    79 
note   100,   no,   in   note  155,  and 
slavery    agitation    among    Wyan- 
dotts,  85  note  107,  251;   relations 
with  Guthrie,  85  note  107,  89  note 
117;    favors  Wyandott  territorial 
movement,  89,  144;  candidacy  for 
Senate,   1853,   109   ff;   newspapers 
supporting,     in;     visits    western 
counties,   112-115;   his   aggressive 
tactics,  115   ff;   advocates  "imme 
diate"    occupation    of    Nebraska, 
115  ff,  162  note  228;   lack  of  in 
terest     in     Nebraska,     115,     136; 
forces  Atchison  to  act  on  the  de 
fensive,    n  6,   131;    letter  to  Mix, 
120;     Manypenny's     letter,     120; 
letter     to     citizens     of     Monroe 
County,  121,   and  the  Freesoilers, 
79    note    100,    254    ff;    on   Indian 
titles  in  Nebraska,  116  ff,  121  ff; 
his  map  of  Nebraska,  120  ff ;  effect 
of    his    Nebraska    agitation,    130- 
131,  J59>  J62  note  228;  mentioned 
in  Wyandott  resolutions,  145-146; 
endorsed  by  Andrew  County  meet 
ing,  165  note  232 ;  effect  of  Repeal 
upon  his  senatorial  prospects,  220 
ff,  224;  his  dilemma  in  1854,  222 
ff;  opposes  Kansas-Nebraska  bill, 
224   ff;    defeated   for  the   Senate, 
225-226 ;    gubernatorial   campaign 
of    1856,    226;     his    position    re 


viewed  by  Atchison,  253  ff;  men 
tioned  in  Parker's  pamphlet,  271 
ff. 

Comments  on:  Iowa  State  Ga 
zette,  179 ;  Richmond  Enquirer ; 
198;  Missouri  Republican,  199. 

Speeches:  at  Jefferson  City 
(Mo.),  30  note  21,  31,  32,  40,  42; 
at  Liberty  (Mo.),  51  note  54;  at 
Fayette  (Mo.),  42  note  41;  at 
Platte  City,  49  note  50;  at  St. 
Louis,  50  note  52,  62  note  74;  at 
St.  Joseph,  58;  at  Jackson,  Cape 
Girardeau  County  (Mo.),  75-76; 
at  Kansas  City  (Mo.),  117  note 
164,  253  ff;  at  Westport,  253,  255; 
at  Weston,  117  note  164;  at  Inde 
pendence,  117  note  164,  253  ff. 
Benton's  Map  of  Nebraska:  Benton's 
note  to  Mix,  120;  Manypenny  to 
Benton,  120;  Atchison  on,  123  ff; 
condemned  by  Manypenny,  128 ; 
endorsed  by  Andrew  County  meet 
ing,  166  note  232. 
Bibliography:  290  ff. 
Birch,  Judge  James  H.:  38  note  34, 

46,  49  note  50,  51  note  54,  58. 
Bissell,  W.  H.:  88. 
Elaine,  James  G.:  Twenty  Years  of 

Congress,  quoted,  52  note  55. 
Blair,   Francis   P.,   Jr.:    67   note   83, 
85   note    107,    173,  251,   260,   290; 
speech  quoted,  229  ff;  letter  quot 
ed,  202  note  283,  231  note  324. 
Bogy,  Col.  Louis  B.:  68. 
Boston  Atlas:  quoted,  167  note  233, 

1 80. 

Boston  Journal:  quoted,  177  note  250. 
Boy,  W.  V.  N.:  173,  260. 
Bradford,  Hon.  A.  A.:  177. 
Breckinridge,  John  C.:  34,  213,  214, 

249. 

Bright,  Senator  Jesse  D.:  214,  284. 
Brown,  Aaron  V.:  98  note  129. 


306 


INDEX 


Brown,  B.  Gratz:  85  note  107,  173, 

251,  260. 
Burgess,  Prof.  J.  W.:  on  Douglas's 

motives,  17. 
Butler,  Senator  A.  P.:  231. 

CABINET:  of  President  Pierce,  212- 

213,  273- 

Calhoun,  Andrew  Pickens:  letter  of 
John  C.  Calhoun  to,  quoted,  44 
note  45. 

Calhoun,  John  C. :  29,  34;  hostility 
to  Benton,-  30-32,  43  if,  and  the 
annexation  of  Texas,  30,  31,  32 
note  28,  35;  his  Senate  resolutions 
of  Feb.,  1847,  42,  47;  connection 
with  Jackson  resolutions,  42  ff; 
correspondence  quoted,  44  note  45, 
59  note  65 ;  reply  to  Benton,  30 
note  21,  44  note  45 ;  influence  upon 
Atchison,  Hunter,  Mason,  and 
Butler,  230  if. 

Calhounites:  in  Missouri,  62-63. 

Cape  Girardeau  County:  Benton's 
speech  in,  75-76. 

Caruthers,  Samuel:  263. 

Cass,  Senator  Lewis:  218. 

Cass-Nicholson  Letter:  172. 

Central  National  Highway:  Ben- 
ton's  project  for  the,  72  if,  76. 

Charleston  Courier:  quoted,  205. 

Chase,  Salmon  P.:  letter  of  Klippel 
to,  57  if;  proposed  route  for  Pa 
cific  Railroad,  80;  letter  to  E.  S. 
Hamlin,  quoted,  158  note  224. 

Clark,  G.  I. :  147. 

Clark,  Dr.  Monson  H.:  176. 

Clay,  Henry:  31,  136. 

Clayton  Amendment:  to  Kansas-Ne 
braska  bill,  215  ff. 

Clemson,  Thomas  G. :  Calhoun's  let 
ter  to,  quoted,  59,  note  65. 

Cole  County:  Benton's  letter  to  cit 
izens  of,  76,  116  ff,  256. 


Commissioner  of  Indian  Aifairs.  See 
Manypenny. 

Committee  on  Territories:  Senate, 
Thirty-third  Congress,  195  note 
272,  199,  200  if,  203,  204,  205  if, 
220. 

Compromise  of  1850:  15,  186;  estab 
lishing  a  precedent,  21,  190  if;  en 
dorsed  by  Mo.  Democratic  Con 
vention,  67;  extreme  Southern  in 
terpretation  of,  93  note  125;  188 
if,  190  if;  comment  of  St.  Louis 
Intelligencer,  192  note  268;  Atch- 
ison's  attitude  on  Slavery  in  Ne 
braska,  139-140;  endorsed  by  St. 
Joseph  meeting,  168. 

Comments:  of  Charleston  Cou 
rier,  205 ;  of  Missouri  Republican, 

221. 

Discussed:  by  Richmond  En 
quirer,  1 88  ff;  by  the  Mississip- 
pian,  190;  by  Albany  Argus,  191 
if;  in  report  of  Jan.  4,  1854,  205 
if. 

Congress:  Nebraska  question  in 
Thirty-third,  anticipated,  178  if, 
183;  Missouri  senatorial  fight 
transferred  to,  29,  141,  195  if,  198, 
199,  205,  215  note  303,  220  if,  227, 
256  if. 

Congressional  Globe:  inadequate  as 
a  source,  16,  24,  196  ff,  215. 

Connelley,  Wm.  E. :  33  note  29,  34 
note  30,  36  note  32,  86  note  108, 
89  note  117,  148  note  207,  243  if. 

Council  Bluffs  (Iowa)  :  80,  176,  177. 

Curtis,  Col.  Samuel   H.:  177. 

Cutts,  J.  M. :  Treatise  upon  Consti 
tutional  and  Party  Questions, 
quoted,  163  note  228. 

DAVIS,  JEFFERSON:  34,  248,  273. 
Dawes,  H.  L. :  letter  of  Guthrie  to, 

83  note  102,  91  note  124. 
Dews,  I.  M. :  177. 


INDEX 


307 


Dixon,  Senator  Archibald:  his 
amendment,  207,  211,  223,  273; 
letter  to  Foote,  quoted,  210  note 
295,  211  note  297;  friendly  to 
Atchison,  273. 

Doctrine  of  Supersedure:  21,  187  ff, 
193  ff,  203,  209,  213,  217-218. 

Dodge,  Senator  A.  C. :  resolution  by, 
99;  introduces  Nebraska  bill,  100, 
195 ;  remarks  upon,  quoted,  177 
note  251;  favors  two  territories, 
208  note  292;  at  Council  Bluffs, 
177. 

Douglas,  Stephen  A.:  reputed  author 
of  the  Repeal,  16;  explanations  of 
his  motives,  16  ff,  237  ff;  com 
mitted  to  the  Missouri  Compro 
mise,  20-21 ;  resolution  not  to 
speak  on  Slavery,  21 ;  charges  of 
inconsistency  against,  21 ;  denial 
of  Atchison's  claim,  23,  282  ff; 
indifference  to  Nebraska,  19,  83 
note  103,  94  ff,  98;  his  Nebraska 
bills,  95  ff ;  unconnected  with  Ne 
braska  movement  in  1853,  183  ff ; 
European  trip,  184;  letter  to  Lan- 
phier  and  Walker,  183  ff ;  its  sig 
nificance,  185;  and  the  doctrine  of 
Supersedure,  187  ff ;  report  of  Jan. 
4,  1854,  187,  205  ff,  209  ff;  com 
pelled  to  act  on  the  Nebraska 
question,  200;  speech  at  111.  State 
Agricultural  Fair,  200;  relations 
with  Atchison,  201-202,  221,  277 
ff;  attitude  toward  Benton,  202, 
221 ;  aids  anti-Benton  faction  in 
Mo.,  202  note  283;  reports  Kan 
sas-Nebraska  bill,  207  ff ;  and  the 
creation  of  two  Territories,  208 
note  292;  and  the  Pierce  Admin 
istration,  184  ff,  212  ff,  214;  In 
terest  in  Pacific  R.  R.,  184  ff,  237 
ff ;  his  quibbling,  285  ff. 

Downs,  H.  P.:  176. 

Dusenbury,  H.:  173,  260. 


E ASTON,  L.  J. :  167. 

Emigration:  through   Nebraska,   72, 

76,  82  note  102,  83  note  103,  170 
note   237;    to    Nebraska,    130-131, 
*59>  *63  note  228. 

English,  W.  G.:  177. 
Epithets:  58. 

"FAIRFAX":  Washington  correspond 
ent  of  the  Richmond  Enquirer, 
197,  198,  268. 

Faulkner,  Charles  J. :  273  note  374. 

Fayette  (Mo.) :  Atchison's  speech  at, 

77,  123,  132  note  183,  134;  Ben- 
ton's  speech  at,  42  note  41. 

Forney,  John  W.:  268. 

Fremont,  John  C.:  explorations,  80. 

GEYER,  HENRY  S. :  249,  263 ;  elected 
to  the  Senate  to  succeed  Benton, 
66;  and  A.  Guthrie,  88;  opposes 
Wyandott  territorial  movement, 
88 ;  opposition  to  Nebraska  bill  in 
Thirty-second  Congress,  114. 

Giddings,  Joshua  R. :  colloquy  with 
Howe  in  the  House,  93. 

Glenwood  (Iowa) :  176. 

Goodspeed,  Weston  Arthur:  Prov 
inces  and  States,  quoted,  27,  52 
note  55. 

Green,  James  S. :  Elaine's  comment 
upon,  52  note  55;  reply  to  Ben- 
ton's  Appeal,  52  ff ;  succeeds  Atch 
ison  in  Senate,  226  note  318. 

Greenwood,  Judge:  177. 

Guthrie,  Abelard:  letters  to  H.  L. 
Dawes,  83  note  102,  91  note  124; 
opposed  to  Slavery,  85  note  107; 
relations  with  Benton,  85  note  107, 
250-251;  letter  to  Washburn,  87 
note  109 ;  elected  Delegate  to  Con 
gress,  87 ;  renominated  to  Con 
gress,  147,  148  note  207 ;  defeated 
for  Congress,  151  ff,  153  note  215; 
interview  with  Atchison,  88,  135; 


3o8 


INDEX 


letters  to  Wm.  Walker,  88,  90;  re 
fused  a  seat  by  the  House,  91 ;  his 
memorials,  92;  Mayall's  comment 
on,  107;  remarks  in  Wyandott 
convention,  146 ;  attacks  Many- 
penny,  152,  153  note  215;  on  the 
establishment  of  provisional  gov 
ernment,  153  note  215;  letter  to 
N.  Y.  Tribune,  153  note  215. 
Gwin,  Senator  W.  M. :  80,  199  note 
278. 

HALL,  WILLARD  P.:  opposed  to  Ben- 
ton,  58 ;  his  Nebraska  territorial 
bills,  81  note  101,  90,  92,  99,  165, 
168;  mentioned  in  Wyandott  res 
olutions,  145-146 ;  remarks  in 
Thirty-second  Congress  quoted, 
241  ff. 

Hamilton,  Rev.  Wm. :  176. 

Hannibal  and  St.  Joseph  Railroad: 
77,  101. 

Hemp-raising:  115  note  162,  271. 

Henn,  Bernhart:  176,  177  note  251. 

Hepner,  George:  177. 

Holden,  N.  B.:  97  note  132. 

Holley,  C.  F.:  Benton's  letter  to,  117 
note  164;  reports  resolutions  at 
Andrew  County  meeting,  164;  ad 
dresses  St.  Joseph  meeting,  167  ff. 

Hoist,  H.  E.  von:  on  Douglas's  mo 
tives,  1 6. 

House  of  Representatives:  vote  ana 
lyzed,  239  ff. 

Houston,  G.  S.:  92. 

Houston,  Gen.  Sam:  278,  280. 

Howe,  T.  M. :  colloquy  with  Gidd- 
ings  in  the  House,  93. 

Hughes,  Roland:  quoted,  34  note  30. 

Hunter,  Senator  Robert  M.  T. :  212, 
213,  214,  230  ff. 

Hutawa,  Jules:  128. 

Illinois  State  Register:  184. 


Immediate:  annexation  of  Texas,  30, 
31,  32  note  28;  settlement  of  Ne 
braska,  82,  115  ff,  119  ff,  123  ff, 
128-129,  130,  160,  163  note  228,  165 
note  232.  See  also  Atchison,  Ben- 
ton,  Benton's  Map  of  Nebraska, 
Indians,  Letters,  Manypenny,  and 
Resolutions. 

Independence  (Mo.)  :  Benton  speaks 
at,  117  note  164. 

Indians:  84,  85  note  106,  91,  116  ff, 

119,   120,   121   ff,   135,   137,  143,  145, 

148,   155,   157,  165-166,   180.     See 

also  Guthrie,  Immediate,  and  Wy- 

andotts. 
Internal  Improvements:  61  note  73, 

70,  1 8  6. 
lowans:  interest  of  in  Nebraska,  100, 

103,  169  note  236,  174,  176  ff,  178 

note  252. 

loiva  Republican:  quoted,  130. 
Iowa  State  Gazette:  quoted,  84  note 

106,  177  note  251,  179. 

JACKSON,  ANDREW:  30;  quoted,  31, 
32  note  27. 

Jackson  Claiborne  F. :  34  note  30, 
38,  40  note  37. 

Jackson  (Mo.)  :  resolutions  of  meet 
ing  in,  47  note  48 ;  Benton's  speech 
at,  75. 

Jackson  Resolutions.:  adopted,  38; 
quoted,  38  ff;  authorship  of,  39 
note  37;  purpose  of,  50  note  52, 
54  note  59,  55;  Benton's  appeal 
from,  39  ff;  form  anti-Benton 
platform,  50;  alleged  fraud  in 
passage,  54;  in  campaign  of  1852, 
69  note  86;  Benton's  letter  to 
Boonville  Observer  concerning, 
69  note  86;  in  Missouri  legisla 
ture  of  1852,  70-71 ;  connection 
with  the  Repeal,  107. 

Jefferson      City      (Mo.)  :      Benton's 


INDEX 


309 


speech  at,  quoted,  30  note  21,  31, 

32,  40-47. 

Jefferson  Examiner:  quoted,  132. 
Jefferson  Inquirer:  quoted,    50  note 

53,  69  note  87,  112,  140. 
Johnson,  Hadley  D.:  175  ff,  208  note 

292. 
Johnson,    Rev.    Thomas:    146,    147, 

148,   150,  151,   153,   155,   157,  208 

note  292. 
Judges:  Benton  assails  the  Missouri 

judges,  46,  58. 

KANSAS:  early  slavery  in,  88  note 
114. 

Kansas  City:  Benton  speaks  at,  117 
note  164,  253. 

Kansas-Nebraska  Bill:  16,  28,  50, 
162,  173,  185,  186,  207,  208,  210, 
214,  221-223,  225,  226,  228,  237, 
243,  258,  261,  264,  266  note  368, 
277  ff.  See  also  Administration, 
Atchison,  Benton,  Blair,  F.  P.,  Jr., 
Cabinet,  Clayton  Amendment, 
Compromise  of  1850,  Congress, 
Dixon,  Dodge,  Douglas,  Johnson, 
Missouri  Compromise,  Missouri 
Politics,  Parker,  Repeal,  and  Su- 
persedure. 

Kapp's:  Geschichte  der  Sklaverei, 
cited,  17  note  3. 

Kasson,  John  A.:  173,  260. 

Keyster,  A.:  260. 

Kickapoo  (Kans.) :  convention  at, 
148 ;  resolutions  adopted  at,  149  ff. 

King,  Vice-President  Wm.  R.:  216 
note  304. 

Klippel,  Adam:  letter  to  S.  P.  Chase, 
57  ff. 

Kreckel,  A.:  173,  260. 

LAMB,  A.  W.:  263. 
Lanphier  and  Walker:  Douglas's  let 
ter  to,  184  ff. 


Letters:  of  J.  S.  Green  replying  to 
Benton,  52  ff ;  of  Adam  Klippel  to 
Chase,  57  ff;  of  J.  S.  Bowlin  to 
his  constituents,  59 ;  of  S.  P.  Chase 
to  E.  S.  Hamlin,  159  note  224;  of 
A.  S.  Latty  to  S.  P.  Chase,  181 
note  255 ;  of  Douglas  to  Walker 
and  Lanphier,  185-186;  of  F.  P. 
Blair,  Jr.,  to  Missouri  Democrat, 
202  note  283,  232  note  324;  of 
Dixon  to  Foote,  209  note  295,  210 
note  297. 

Of  Andrew  Jackson:  to  W.  B. 
Lewis,  31 ;  to  B.  F.  Butler,  32  note 
27. 

Of  Benton:  to  "The  People  of 
Missouri"  (1849),  41  note  40, 
(1853)  76;  discussing  union  with 
Calhounites,  62-63  >  to  Boonville 
Observer,  69  note  86;  to  citizens 
of  Cole  County,  76,  116  ff,  255; 
to  citizens  of  Monroe  County,  121 ; 
to  Mix,  120. 

Of  J.  C.  Calhoun:  to  A.  P.  Cal- 
houn,  44  note  45;  to  T.  G. 
Clemson,  59  note  65;  to  A.  W. 
Venable,  59  note  65. 

Of  Atchison:  replying  to  Ben- 
ton's  Appeal,  52 ;  to  S.  Treat,  78 
note  100 ;  to  Secretary  of  Inter 
ior,  124-125 ;  to  Missouri  Examin 
er,  156  note  221. 

Of  Manypenny:  to  Benton,  120; 
to  Atchison,  126;  to  Independence 
Reporter,  128-129. 

Of  Guthrie:  to  N.  Y.  Tribune, 
153  note  215;   to  Dawes,  83  note 
102,  91  note  124;  to  Washburn,  87 
note  109;  to  Wm.  Walker  88,  90. 
Lindley^  J.  W.:  xoi,  263. 
Lingenfelter,  L. :  177. 
Louisville   Courier:  quoted,   67  note 

83. 
"Lynceus":  pseudonym,  277  note  377. 


3io 


INDEX 


McEwEN,  WM.  ;  177. 

McKissick,  C.  W.:  177. 

Manypenn)-,  George  W. :  Commis 
sioner  of  Indian  Affairs;  letter  to 
Benton  on  Map,  120;  letter  to 
Atchison,  125 ;  letter  of  Independ 
ence  Reporter,  128 ;  mentioned  in 
Kickapoo  resolutions,  149;  attack 
ed  by  Guthrie,  152,  153  note  215; 
visits  Nebraska  Indians,  154  ff, 
162  note  228;  meets  the  Wyan- 
dotts,  155-156;  object  of  visit,  158; 
fails  to  negotiate  treaties,  157  ff; 
charges  based  thereon,  156  ff; 
relations  with  Atchison,  156  ff; 
Atchison's  letter  to  Missouri  Ex 
aminer,  156  note  221 ;  accom 
panied  by  Johnson  and  Whitfield, 
157;  hostility  of  Bentonites,  158 
note  223;  instructions  quoted,  158; 
report  quoted,  155  note  219,  157 
note  222,  159;  pro-slavery  sympa 
thies,  158  note  224;  censured  by 
Andrew  County  meeting,  165  note 
232. 

Comments  on:  St.  Joseph  Ga 
zette,  12$  note  174;  N.  Y.  Even 
ing  Post,  181;  N.  Y.  Journal  of 
Commerce,  182;  Missouri  Repub 
lican,  199. 

Mason,  Senator  J.  M. :  212,  213,  214, 
230  ff. 

Mayall,  S. :  107  note  149. 

Means,  Wm.  C.:  176. 

Methodist  Church:  84,  85  note  107, 
151. 

Miller,  J.  G.:  100,  196,  263. 

Miller,  O.  C.:  147. 

Mississippian,  The:  quoted,   190  ff. 

Missouri  Compromise:  restriction  on 
slavery,  22,  39,  104,  168,  179;  op 
position  of  Judge  Price,  35;  Mis 
souri  legislative  resolutions  en 
dorsing,  37;  Atchison's  attitude  to 
ward,  104,  134  ff;  repudiated  by 


the  North,  93  note  125,  188,  190, 
191.  See  also  Atchison,  Benton, 
Compromise  of  1850,  Kansas-Ne 
braska,  Price,  W.  C.,  and  Repeal. 

Missouri  Examiner:  Atchison's  let 
ter  to,  156  note  221. 

Missouri  Legislature:  memorial  on 
Texas,  32,  262 ;  resolutions  against 
Texas,  32  note  28;  Jackson  reso 
lutions  in,  38,  46,  54  note  59,  262; 
party  divisions  in,  64  ff;  session 
of  1850-51,  64  ff;  message  of  pro- 
Benton  caucus,  64;  reply  of  anti- 
Benton  caucus,  64;  anti-Benton 
resolution  by  Mr.  Hill,  65 ;  elec 
tion  of  Geyer  to  Senate,  66;  re 
marks  of  Mr.  Stewart,  66  note 
81;  special  session,  1852,  70;  reg 
ular  session,  53,  71;  memorial  for 
Nebraska  Territory,  97;  resolu 
tions  on  Benton  and  Pacific  Rail 
road,  171  note  239;  resolutions  en 
dorsing  popular  sovereignty,  172- 
173  ;  comment  of  Missouri  Repub 
lican,  172  note  240. 

Missouri  Politics:  24;  Democratic 
dissensions,  27  ff;  effect  of  Ben- 
ton's  appeal  and  canvass,  58,  59, 
64  note  77 ;  position  of  Whigs,  51 
note  54,  60,  61,  63,  68  note  87; 
campaign  of  1850,  61,  63,  64;  at 
tempts  to  heal  party  schism,  62, 
67;  campaign  of  1852,  67  ff; 
state  Democratic  convention,  67- 
68 ;  Benton's  election  to  the  House, 
68  ff;  campaign  of  1853,  109  ff, 
114;  alignment  of  press,  in;  re 
lation  of  Repeal  to  senatorial  con 
test,  219  ff.  See  also  Anti-Ben- 
ton,  Atchison,  Benton,  Calhoun,  J. 
C.,  Congress,  Douglas,  Jackson 
Resolutions,  Letters,  Missouri  Leg 
islature,  Pacific  Railroad,  Parker, 
Price,  W.  C.,  Resolutions,  and 
Whigs. 


INDEX 


Missouri  Republican:  in  note  156; 
quoted,  119  note  165,  127,  199,  214, 
215  note  303,  221,  223,  224,  271. 

Missourians:  interest  in  Nebraska 
territorial  movement,  82,  too,  101, 
114,  136  ff,  163,  164,  167,  169  if, 
173,  258  ff,  270  ff.  See  also  An 
drew  County,  Nebraska  Conven 
tion,  Parkville,  St.  Joseph,  and  St. 
Louis. 

Monroe  County  (Mo.)  :  Benton's 
letter  to  the  citizens  of,  121. 

Mundy,  Isaac:  147. 

NAPION,  JUDGE  W.  B.:  39  note  37, 
46  note  46. 

National  Intelligencer:  quoted,  144 
note  199,  154  note  218,  161  note 
227,  176  note  250. 

National  Quarterly  Review.  Col. 
Parker's  article  in,  quoted,  229, 
264  ff. 

Nebraska:  territorial  bills,  15,  20, 
22,  8 1,  90,  94  ff,  98,  99,  100,  118, 
122,  195  ff,  238  ff;  Douglas's  lack 
of  interest  in,  19,  83  note  103,  94 
ff,  98  note  134,  99-100;  final  move 
ment  for  territorial  government, 
8 1  ff;  and  Pacific  Railroad,  75-76, 
81,  87,  107,  143  ff,  150;  recom 
mendation  of  Secretary  Wilkins, 
95-96 ;  memorial  of  Missouri  leg 
islature,  97;  Delegate  to  Congress, 
147,  250;  Missouri  politicians  and, 
144  note  198,  150;  Provisional 
Government,  143  ff;  organization 
favored  by  Benton,  89  and  by 
Atchison,  102  ff;  controversy  over 
"immediate"  settlement,  115  ff; 
Dodge's  resolution  in  Senate,  99- 
100;  Parkville  resolutions,  82 
note  102;  Kickapoo  convention 
and  resolutions,  148-149;  organiz 
ation  anticipated,  178  ff,  183,  191, 
193  ff ;  Andrew  county  resolutions, 


164  ff;  St.  Joseph  resolutions,  168 ; 
Manypenny's  visit  to,  154  ff; 
Manypenny  recommends  territor 
ial  government,  161.  See  also 
Atchison,  Benton,  Douglas,  Emi 
gration,  Guthrie,  Immediate,  In 
dians,  lowans,  Johnson,  Kansas- 
Nebraska,  Letters,  Missourians, 
Pacific  Railroad,  Public  Meetings, 
and  Resolutions. 

New  Orleans   Crescent:  quoted,   69. 

Newspapers:  pro-Benton  and  anti- 
Benton,  in  Missouri,  51  note  54, 
58,  in.  See  also  Bibliography. 

New   York   Courier:   quoted,   no. 

New  York  Evening  Post:  quoted,  156 
note  221,  181. 

New  York  Herald:  quoted,  212  ff. 

New  York  Independent:  quoted,  170 
note  238. 

New  York  Journal  of  Commerce: 
quoted,  181,  220. 

New  York  Tribune:  quoted,  276  ff. 

Nicholson,  O.  P.:  273. 

Nullification:  30,  49  note  51,  60  note 
73,  63. 

O'DRISCOLL,  B.:  167. 
Oliver,  Mordecai:  247,  263. 

PACIFIC  RAILROAD:  championed  by 
Benton,  72  ff;  interest  of  Wyan- 
dotts  in,  73,  81,  85,  86  note  108, 
142 ;  connection  with  Nebraska 
territorial  movement,  75-76,  81,  87, 
107,  143  ff,  150;  Atchison's  posi 
tion  toward,  77  ff,  260  note  357; 
route  of,  72,  79,  142  ff,  237  ff;  in 
terest  of  Illinois  in,  237  ff;  as  an 
issue  in  Missouri,  114;  Lindley  re 
fers  to,  101 ;  Douglas's  interest  in, 
186,  237  ff. 

Resolutions  on:  Wyandott  Con 
vention,  144;  Kickapoo  Conven 
tion,  149 ;  Andrew  County  resolu- 


3I2 


INDEX 


tions,  165  note  232;  Nebraska 
Convention,  169  note  237. 

Parker,  Col.  John  A. :  credibility  dis 
cussed,  264  ff;  his  Secret  History 
of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill,  229, 
264  ff;  on  origin  of  Repeal,  266 
note  368,  270  ff;  removal  as  li 
brarian,  267  ff. 

Parkville  (Mo.)  :  Atchison's  speech 
at,  77,  123,  134,  136,  256,  281; 
meeting  of  citizens,  81 ;  resolu 
tions,  82;  presented  to  the  Senate, 
99 ;  Luminary,  276  ff,  284. 

Paxton,  Wm.  M.:  Annals  of  Platte 
County,  Missouri,  quoted,  49  note 
50. 

Phelps,  J.  S.:  80,  86  note  107,  90 
note  120,  91,  97,  114. 

Phillips,  Phillip:  213,  214. 

Phillips,  William:  Conquest  of  Kan 
sas,  quoted,  84  note  106,  88  note 
114,  148  note  207. 

Phillips,  Waldorf  H.:  265  ff. 

Pierce,  Charles  W.:  177. 

Pierce,  Franklin:  79  note  100,  80, 
no,  in  note  155,  212  ff,  214. 

Platte  Argus:  82  note  102,  277. 

Platte  City  (Mo.)  :  incident  during 
Benton's  speech,  49  note  50;  Atch 
ison's  speech  at,  23,  134,  281;  res 
olutions  of  citizens,  226  note  319. 

Platte  County  (Mo.)  :  Paxton's  An 
nals  of,  quoted,  49  note  50. 

Platte  Territory:  Hall's  bill  for  or 
ganization  of,  81  note  101,  90,  99. 

Polk,  Trusten:  34  note   30,  290. 

Polk,  President  James  K.:  31. 

Popular  Demand  (for  territorial 
government  in  Nebraska).  See 
also  Immediate,  lowans,  Missour- 
ians,  Public  Meetings  and  Resolu 
tions. 

Popular  Sovereignty:  Douglas  and, 
18;  favored  by  Atchison,  135,  137, 
189  ff,  255  ff;  Missouri  Republi 


can  on,  172  note  240;  discussed 
by  Richmond  Enquirer,  The  Mis- 
sissippian,  and  Albany  Argus, 
118  ff. 

Endorsed:  by  Missouri  legisla 
ture,  39,  172-173,  227;  by  Andrew 
County,  165;  by  St.  Joseph  meet 
ing,  1 68;  by  Nebraska  Conven 
tion,  170. 

Pottawatomie  County  (Iowa)  :  Ne 
braska  meetings,  178  note  252. 

Price,  Sterling:  34. 

Price,  Thomas  L.:  173,  260. 

Price,  W.  A.:  164. 

Price,  Judge  William  C. :  33,  34,  46, 
66;  hostility  to  Benton,  34-35; 
suggest  Repeal  to  Benton,  35; 
claims  authorship  of  the  Repeal, 
36  note  32;  on  plans  of  Missouri 
radicals,  105  note  147 ;  on  emigra 
tion  of  Wyandotts,  85  note  107; 
importance  in  the  Repeal  move 
ment,  243 ;  sketch  of,  243  ff ;  on 
the  settlement  of  Nebraska,  250; 
on  slavery  agitation  among  Wy 
andotts,  251. 

Provisional  Government  of  Nebras 
ka:  early  steps  in  the  establish 
ment  of,  144 ;  organized,  147 ; 
Wm.  Walker's  comment  upon, 
152;  Guthrie's  account  of,  153 
note  215.  See  also  Guthrie,  John 
son,  Nebraska,  Walker,  Wrn.,  and 
Wyandotts. 

Public  Meetings:  in  Missouri  and 
Iowa,  164  ff,  167,  169,  170  note 
238,  173,  176.  See  also  Immedi 
ate,  lowans,  Missourians,  and 
Resolutions. 

RECTOR,  HON.  BENJ.:  177. 
Reeder,  A.  H.:  152. 
Reid,  Col.  J.  W.:  49  note  50. 
Repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise: 
15,  16,  20,  22,  24,  28,  29,  34  note 


INDEX 


313 


30,  35,  36  note  321,  72,  81,  93,  105, 
106,  138-139,  140,  141,  153  note 
215,  168,  170,  179,  180,  182,  183, 
186,  192,  196,  201,  202,  207,  209- 

211,  214,  215,  217-219,  221-222, 
227,  229,  233,  237,  242,  243,  258, 

269,  272-275,  277  ff,  286.  See  al 
so  Anti-Benton,  Atchison,  Benton, 
Blair,  Compromise  of  1850,  Doug 
las,  Missouri  Compromise,  Price, 
W.  C.,  and  Supersedure. 
Reports:  of  Commissioner  Manypen- 
ny,  155  note  219,  159;  of  Senate 
Committee  on  Territories,  Jan.  4, 
1854,  204  ff,  208  ff. 
Resolutions:  against  "immediate"  an 
nexation,  32  note  28 ;  pro-Benton, 
37;  anti-Benton,  38,  64-65;  Jack 
son  legislative,  38  ff;  of  Texas, 
Maryland,  Virginia,  Georgia  and 
North  Carolina,  41;  of  Jackson 
(Mo.),  47  note  48;  of  Liberty 
(Mo.),  51  note  54;  of  Calhoun  in 
U.  S.  Senate,  43  ff;  of  Parkville 
(Mo.),  82;  of  Wyandott  Conven 
tion,  144  ff;  of  Andrew  County, 
164  ff;  of  St.  Joseph,  167;  of  Ne 
braska  Convention,  169  ff ;  of  pro- 
slavery  meeting  in  Missouri,  170 
note  238;  of  Missouri  legislature 
on  Pacific  R.  R.,  171  note  239;  of 
Missouri  legislature  on  popular 
sovereignty,  172  ff;  of  St.  Louis 
meeting,  173,  260;  of  Pottawat- 
omie  County  meeting,  178  note 
252;  of  Platte  City  meeting,  226. 

Review  of  Political  Action  in  Mis 
souri:  quoted,  56  note  62,  68  note 
84,  69  note  86. 

Rhodes,  J.  F. :  on  Douglas's  motives, 
17- 

Richardson,  W.  A.:  88,  90,  91,  195, 
221. 

Richmond  Enquirer:  quoted,  188, 
198,  268  note  370. 


Right  of  Instruction:  53   ff,  65. 

Ritchie,  Thomas:  266. 

Road  to  India:  74  note  91,  79  note 

100,  80,  119  note  165. 
Rusk,  Senator  T.  J.:  94,  285. 

ST.  JOSEPH  Gazette:  quoted,  125 
note  174,  140. 

St.  Joseph  Meeting:  proceedings  of, 
167  ff. 

St.  Louis  (Mo.)  :  Nebraska  meeting, 
173,  260;  interest  in  territorial 
question,  261. 

St.  Louis  Evening  News:  quoted, 
123. 

St.  Louis  Intelligencer:  quoted,  192 
note  268. 

Samuels,  G.  W.:  164. 

Sarpy's:  proceedings  at,  175  ff. 

Savannah  Sentinel:  quoted,  122  note 
170. 

Schouler,  James:  on  Douglas's  mo 
tives,  1 6. 

Senate:  Committee  on  Territories, 
195  note  272;  votes  analyzed,  219 
note  307,  238  ff. 

Senatorial  Campaign  of  1853:  in 
Missouri,  109  ff. 

Sharp,  Col.  J.  L.:  177. 

Sheldon,  A.  E.:  his  and  J.  Amos 
Barrett's  new  explanation  of 
Douglas's  motives,  19  note  8,  237 
ff. 

Sidney    (Iowa)  :  meeting   at,   176. 

Slavery  Question  in  Kansas-Nebras 
ka:  18,  35,  85  note  107,  88,  90,  92 
note  124,  93,  98,  104,  105  note  147, 
108,  114,  131,  132,  135  ff,  139- 
140,  141,  145-146,  150  note  209, 
153  note  215,  158,  165,  168,  170, 
171  note  239,  172,  179,  180,  181, 
182,  183,  186,  188  ff,  190-191,  196, 
198,  199,  201,  202,  203,  205,  207, 

212-213,  221,  228,  253    ff,  272,  280. 


INDEX 


Smith,  Prof.  Theodore  C. :  on  Doug 
las's  motives,  17  note  6. 

Smith,  Rev.  William:  247. 

Snyder,  Judge:  177. 

Solomon,  Dan  H.:  177. 

Starr,  Rev.  Frederick:  276  note  377. 

Stiles,   George  P.:  177. 

Stuart,  Senator  C.  E.:  218. 

Supersedure:  doctrine  of,  21,  187  ff, 
193  ff,  203,  209,  213,  217-218. 

Switzler,  Col.  Wm.  F.:  quoted,  59, 
60,  66,  70,  71. 

TEXAS:  annexation  of,  30,  31,  32. 
Toombs,    Senator    Robert:    34,    247, 

248,  283,  284,  287. 
Tucker,  Beverly:  273. 
Turley,  Marshall:  177. 
Tyler,  John:  31. 

VAN  BUSKIRK,  JUDGE  DANIEL:  164. 
Venable,  A.  W.:  Calhoun's  letter  to, 
quoted,  59  note  65. 

WALKER,  SENATOR  I.  P.:  218. 

Walker,  M.  R.:  148. 

Walker,  William:  Provisional  Gov 
ernor  of  Nebraska  Territory,  85 
note  106,  147 ;  proclamation  of, 
147;  on  election  of  Delegate  to 
Congress,  152;  Journal,  quoted, 
I51»  J53  note  215,  155  note  220; 
Notes  on  Nebraska,  quoted,  86 
note  108,  87  note  no,  91,  174  ff. 

Washington  (D.  C.)  :  Missouri  sen 
atorial  contest  transferred  to,  29, 
141,  195  ff,  198,  199,  205,  214, 
215  note  303,  220  ff,  227,  255  ff. 

Washington  Correspondence :  of 
newspapers,  64  note  77,  67  note 
83,  no,  181,  197,  198,  199,  204, 
205,  214,  215  note  303,  220,  221, 
223,  225,  268  note  370. 

Western  Eagle,  The:  quoted,  44 
note  45,  47  note  48,  50  note  52, 


52  note  55,  64  note  77,  66  note  81. 

Weston  (Mo.)  :  Atchison's  speech  at, 
77,  79  note  100,  119,  134,  257-258 ; 
Reporter's  inquiry  of  Atchison, 
119;  Benton  speaks  at,  117  note 
164. 

Westport  (Mo.) :  253,  255,  281. 

Whigs:  in  Missouri,  as  affected  by 
Benton's  Appeal,  60;  attitude  to 
ward  Benton,  51  note  54,  60  note 
73,  61,  70,  71 ;  Benton's  attitude 
toward,  63,  68  note  87 ;  attitude 
toward  Jackson  Resolutions,  60 
note  73. 

Whitfield,  Gen.  J.  W.:  145,  157. 

Wilkerson,  Representative:  49  note 
50. 

Wilkins,  William:  report  recom 
mending  creation  of  territorial 
government  in  Nebraska,  95. 

Wilmot  Proviso:  Southern  legisla 
tive  resolutions  on,  41 ;  Benton's 
position  on,  47  note  48,  55;  Atch- 
ison's  position  on,  52  note  55,  113 ; 
Green's  discussion  of,  54  ff;  senti 
ment  in  Missouri  toward,  56.  See 
also  Atchison,  Benton,  and  Green. 

Wilson,  Senator  Henry:  speech 
quoted,  282  ff. 

Wilson,  Woodrow:  on  Douglas's 
motives,  17. 

Wyandott  Indians:  residence  in 
Ohio,  83;  civilization  of,  83  ff; 
emigration  to  Nebraska,  84,  85 
note  107;  slavery  agitation  among, 
85  note  107,  251 ;  and  Benton's 
railway  project,  73 ;  interest  in 
Pacific  R.  R.,  73,  81,  85,  86  note 
108,  142 ;  and  establishment  of 
territorial  government  in  Nebras 
ka*  75-76,  81,  87,  143  ff;  elect 
Delegate  to  Congress,  87;  con 
vention  of,  144;  renominate  Guth- 
rie,  147 ;  dissatisfaction  with 
Johnson's  election,  151-152;  visit- 


INDEX 


cd  by  Manypenny,  155-156.  See 
also  Atchison,  Benton,  Guthrie, 
Immediate,  Letters,  Missouri  Pol 


3IS 


itics,  Nebraska,  Pacific  Railroad, 
Price,  W.  C.,  Provisional  Gov 
ernment,  and  Walker,  Wm. 


THE    TORCH     PRESS 
CEDAR   RAPIDS,   IOWA 


